NARSINGH S/O LAKHANLAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 10/2/2011 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in S.T.No.24/2010 convicting the accused/appellant under Ss. 376 and 342 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 with default stipulation and RI for six months, respectively.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 1/2/2010 FIR (Ex.P/4) was lodged by mother of the prosecutrix PW-4 Amrat Mahilange alleging in it that prosecutrix is her elder daughter, who is mentally challenged and even does not speak properly and makes conversation by way of gesture. She states that marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized about 10 years back, but she is living with her. On 28/1/2010 when she returned after taking bath, she was informed by the prosecutrix through gestures that the accused/appellant who is residing near her house called her and after removing her clothes committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that when Bindabai called out Lata, the appellant opened the door and asked the prosecutrix to go from there. Bindabai had seen the accused/appellant taking the prosecutrix forcibly into the house. She states that out of fear she did not disclose the incident to her husband on the same day and informed about the same on the next day and after discussion in the family, she has lodged the report. Based on this FIR, offence under Sec. 376 of IPC was registered against the appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-5 Dr. (Smt.) Sajida Alam vide Ex.P/5, who found no external or internal injury on her person, her hymen was old torn and she was habitual to sexual intercourse. The accused/appellant was also medically examined and was found to be capable of performing sexual intercourse vide Ex.P/8. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Ss. 376 and 342 of IPC against the appellant followed by framing of charge by the trial Court accordingly.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he examined one Yuvdas Sahu.