DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred assailing the judgment of conviction dtd. 30/11/2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 50/2000 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bilaspur whereby the appellants in the two appeals have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 376(2) (G) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that an F.I.R was lodged on 30/5/2000 at around 10:55 pm by PW-2 the Prosecutrix at the Police Outpost Kusmunda, Korba alleging that in the evening of the said day at around 7 pm the two appellants in the two appeals forcibly made the Prosecutrix to drink liquor and thereafter she has been ravished by both the Appellants repeatedly and that with difficulties she could escape from the clutches of the Appellants and then she immediately took shelter in the house of PW-1, Mohar Singh and called upon other persons and the matter was reported to the Police Station and the F.I.R. was lodged. After the investigation were complete the matter was put to trial vide the Sessions Trial No. 50/2000. During the course of the trial the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and there was no witness examined on behalf of defence and finally vide the impugned judgment the Court below found the appellants to be guilty of having committed offence under Sec. 376 (2) (G) of the IPC convicted the appellants in the two appeals for the said offence to undergo R.I. for 10 years, leading to the filing of the present two appeals.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants assailing the impugned judgment submits that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Secondly the material witness PW-1 Mohar Singh and PW-3, Lakhan Singh both have not supported the case of the prosecution. It was also contended by the Counsel for the Appellants that the first person to help the Prosecutrix as alleged in the F.I.R. is the daughter-in-law of PW-1, Mohar Singh and who for reasons best known has not been examined at all which further creates doubt in the Prosecution story. It was further contended by the Counsel for the Appellants that from the deposition of the Prosecutrix it gives sufficient indication that she was a consenting party to the physical relationship if at all if such an incident has taken place between the appellants and the Prosecutrix. It is said that when the appellants brought liquor, and along with the liquor they had brought three glasses where there was only 3 persons i.e. the two appellants and the Prosecutrix. She further highlighted the fact that the Prosecutrix also had consumed liquor, this shows that there was some element of consent on part of the Prosecutrix. Therefore, the prosecution story is falsified. It was also contended that by the Counsel for the Appellants that the doctor who had immediately examined the Prosecutrix on the very next day also could not give any definite opinion on the aspect of the Prosecutrix being subjected to sexual intercourse or in respect of commission of rape by the two appellants on her or not. Thus prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and acquittal of the Appellants.