ASHOK Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentences dated 9.8.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 257/2001 by the IV th Additional Sessions Judge, Am- bikapur, District-Surguja (CG), whereby the said Court, after holding the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 read with Section 34 and 376 (2) (g) of IPC, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 6 months & R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months respectively.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11.3.2001 at about 1.30 p.m., the prosecutrix namely Smt. Koushalya Bai (PW-3), a married lady aged about 23 years, lodged the First Information Report Ex. P-3 that on 10.3.2001 at about 11.00 p.m. when she was present in hep house along with her husband Narayan (PW-9) and family, at that time, the appellants herein namely Ashok and Kalinder, along with the other co-accused namely Jeetan came to their house and called her husband. When the door was opened, they started beating her husband with handstand fists, on which, her husband somehow, ran away towards the house of Surpanch and taking advantage of this situation, they caught hold of her, dragged her to some distance and thereafter committed sexual intercourses one after another against her. She has specifically mentioned the names of appellants Ashok and Kalinder and has also mentioned the name of the co-accused Jeetan and has stated that firstly Ashok has committed sexual intercourse, thereafter Kalinder committed and then lastly Jeetan has committed sexual intercourse against her and after completion of the said act by these appellants, they ran away from the place of occurrence. She has further specifically mentioned that the incident was witnessed by three witnesses namely Koushalya Bai (PW-5), Asha (PW-11) and Susheela (PW-12). After lodging the First Information Report, the pros- ecutrix was sent for medical examination under Ex. P-8 and was examined by Dr. Sarita Singh (PW-8) who prepared her report Ex. P-17. According to her report, no external injuries were noticed on the body of the prosecutrix. On the local examination, she found that the pubic hairs were well developed and were not malted. Secondary sexual characters were well developed and there were no injuries on the private part. On the internal examination, she found that vagina was admitting two fingers easily and she was complaining pain on touch. According to the opinion of the Doctor, she did not notice any sign of recent sexual intercourse. Asha (PW-11) had also received some injuries and was sent for medical examination under Ex. P-10. Her medical report was given by Dr. M. Nikunj (PW-10) vide Ext. P- 10-A, according to which she had received a simple injury. Likewise, Koushalya Bai (PW-5) w/o Chamruram was also sent for medical examination under Ex. P-ll and her report Ex. P-ll-A was prepared by the same Doctor, according to which she had also received simple injury. It appears that firstly, the prosecutrix was sent for examination to Community Health Centre, Sita- pur under Ex. P-12 and a report (unproved) dated 12.3.2001 was obtained, but this report was only to the extent of external examination, perhaps for the reason that no lady doctor was available, therefore, she was sent to Ambikapur from where the report Ex. P-17 referred to above, was obtained Thereafter, after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions by order dated 13.8.2001 from where the matter was received on transfer by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur who in turn conducted the trial against the two appellants, because the third accused namely Jeetan was absconding, and passed impugned judgment. It is against this judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(3.) The conviction and sentences of the appellants are mainly based upon the testimony of the prosecutrix namely Koushalya Bai (PW-3).