NATWAR DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-1-2006, delivered by Shri R. P. Sharma, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Session Case No. 140 of 2005, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Briefly stated prosecution story is that on 23-10-2004, the prosecutrix, a married lady went behind the Badi of her house at about 9-30 p.m. for attending call of nature. The appellant came there, pushed her on the ground, lifted her clothes and mounting upon her committed rape. The prosecutrix shouted. Kejau (P.W. 2) and Amrit Bai (P.W. 5) reached the spot and saw the appellant and the prosecutrix in a compromising situation. Kejau (P.W. 2) slapped the appellant. A Baithka was organized on the next day. Since the matter could not be solved in the Baithka, First information Report was lodged by the prosecutrix Ex. P/l on 31-10-2004 i.e. after a period of 8 days in Police Station Arjuni. She was medically examined by Dr. Abha Rani Singh (P.W. 12) who did not find any marks of violence either on her person or on her private parts. The prosecutrix also did not complain of any pain during walking or otherwise. It was opined that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. Dr. R. S. Thakur (P.W. 15) examined the appellant on 1-11 -2004 and opined that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse.

(3.) Vaginal slide of the prosecutrix, underwear of the appellant seized vide Ex. P/6 and petticoat of the prosecutrix seized vide Ex. P/3 were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory which confirmed the presence of semen and human spermatozoa on all the above articles vide report dated 30-4-2005. After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded false implication and led no evidence in defence. The learned trial Judge relying upon the evidence of the prosecutrix, Kejau (P.W. 2) and Amrit Bai (P.W. 5) and the facts and circumstances of the case, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid in paragraph 1.