SUKHDEV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Appeal the challenge levied is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.1999 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh District Raigarh in S.T. No. 205/1997 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter called as 'IPC') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and under Section 376(1) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. It is admitted by the appellant that the Prosecutrix is the daughter of PW-3 Biduram and sister of PW-2 Lochan Prasad. They are the resident of village Tukupathna Raghunathpur. On 19.05.1997 near about 9 pm the Prosecutrix had gone outside along with her sister to reply the nature's call. The appellant and co-accused Bhuneswar son of Namonarayan Sodhi had kept her in the house of brother-in-law of co-accused Bhuneswar in village Aminpur. PW-11 Dr. J. Minz has medically examined him on 26.05.1997, a sky blue underwear was seized from him.

(2.) In brief, the prosecution case is that on 19.05.1997 there was engagement of the Prosecutrix. Near about 9 pm she had gone to reply the nature's call and did not return back. Her family members searched her to their relatives nearby villages but she could not be traced out. Later she was found along with the appellant in village Kodekela (Orissa). Her father took her back from village Kodekela to PS - Paththalgaon on 25.05.1997 by 08 pm and given a written complaint, on the strength of which FIR was lodged. The appellant and the co-accused caught hold her hand and taken away by pulling on bicycle and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her under a tree. In the morning the appellant took her to Kunkuri bus stand. Thereafter, he took her to Jharsuguda by bus. He kept her in a Dharmsala for the whole night and then after took her to village Pali by bus. During keeping her in his relative's house he had again raped her. Then he took her to village Kodekeda and again raped her. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses have been recorded, spot map was prepared, the Prosecutrix was examined by a lady Doctor, her ossification test was conducted. One underwear was seized from the Prosecutrix, one slide of vaginal swab was also seized. Seized articles were sent to FSL and a report was obtained. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the co-accused. Said co-accused was declared absconded under Section 299 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The Trial Court framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. To bring home the charges the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The accused abjured the charges and pleaded innocence. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this, appeal.