RAMKUMAR Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.3.1990, passed in Sessions Trial No. 119/1987 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. However, he was acquitted under Section 394 IPC.

(2.) THIS Appellant was charged with Sections 394 and 376 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that at about 9.00 am on 17.12.1986, the prosecutrix namely-Geeta Bai, a deserted lady aged about 24 years, met the Appellant at Phoolchowk, Raipur. She was in search of some labour work. On the pretext that the Appellant would manage for work, she accompanied the Appellant and went to village-Bhatagaon, which is at some distance from Raipur. The further case of the prosecution is that in the vicinity of village Bhatagaon, the Appellant took the prosecutrix to an agricultural field and thereafter, at the point of knife, he committed forcible intercourse against her. It is also the case of the prosecution that after commission of the sexual intercourse for one time, they remained there for about half an hour and again the Appellant committed sexual intercourse for the second time and thereafter, he snatched some silver ornaments from the prosecutrix and he also caused injuries to her. The prosecutrix alleges that at the time of commission of sexual intercourses, the Appellant had put a rope around her neck and thereafter, forcible sexual intercourses were committed by him. The prosecutrix lodged a first information report (Ex. P/1) at 4.45 p.m., on the same day in Chowki Tikrapara, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur. During the course of investigation, she was sent for medical examination, and for her injuries, she was examined by Dr. Rajendra Kumar (P.W. 5), who prepared his report Ex. P/8-A. According to his report, there was swelling on the eyes of the prosecutrix and there was abrasion on the front side of the neck. He opined that both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and injury No. 2 was simple in nature and for injury No. 1, he referred the prosecutrix to an Eye Surgeon, who after examination gave his report Ex. -P/5. It appears that thereafter, the prosecutrix was also examined by the Gynecologist namely- S. Ranganna, R.M.O. Maternity Section, D.K. Hospital, Raipur, who found no mark of injury over the private parts of the prosecutrix. There was no matting of pubic hairs and no semen like stains etc. were found. No vaginal discharge was seen and no Gynecological problem was noticed. The Appellant was arrested and was examined by Dr. P.L. Yadu (P.W. 4), who gave his report Ex. P/9-A. According to this report, no external injuries were found on the body of the Appellant and among other usual characteristic, the Appellant was found capable to perform sexual intercourse. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant argued that the conviction based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, is not in accordance with law and the same deserves to be set aside.