LAKHMU Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment 14-7-2005 delivered by Shri Ravishanker Sai, 4th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jagdalpur in Sessions Case No. 492/2000 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(g), IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Briefly stated the factual matrix is that on 11-1-2000 Manmati P.W. 1, aged about 18 years, a married woman had gone to for est along with Cheti Bai P.W. 2 and her I daughter Meghwati for collection of leaves. The appellant-Lakhmu and one Sonsingh arrived there and threatened Cheti Bai and Meghwati at the show of Tangia whereupon they left for the village. The appellant Lakhmu and co-accused Sonsingh forcibly removed the gold and silver ornaments worn by Manmati and thereafter appellant Lakhmu and Sonsingh committed rape on the prosecutrix one after the other. Although on being threatened Cheti Bai P.W. 2, sister-in-law of the prosecutrix left the scene of occurrence, she saw the occurrence from a distance. FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix vide Ex. P. 1 after three days on 14-1-2000 at Police Station Kotwali, Baster situated about 12 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. It was stated that the delay had occasioned since there was no one to accompany her to the Police Station. On medical examination, Dr. Smt. A. Chandra P.W. 6 found superficial abrasions on the right leg anterior aspect, right knee and right ankle joint but no mark of injury on private parts of the prosecutrix was seen. No positive finding as to rape on the prosecutrix could be given. The appellant was also medically examined by Dr. Virendra Kumar Jha P.W. 5. It was found that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The ornaments alleged to have been removed from the person of the prosecutrix were not recovered during investigation. After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Section 392 & 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. Co-accused Sonsingh was declared to be absconding.

(3.) The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution and finding the testimony of the prosecutrix trustworthy, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned in paragraph 1.