BANSHILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.11.1998 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No. 486/1996, whereby learned Second Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional simple imprisonment for five months.

(2.) The conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being a cogent evidence against the appellant the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality.

(3.) As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a resident of Village Charouda. In the intervening night of 08/09.10.1995, the prosecutrix (PW-1) had gone along with Samrin Bai to see dance. During the dance, Samrin Bai took the prosecutrix (PW-1) towards Jangal Naka for discharging urine, where the appellant was already present. Samrin Bai caught hold the hands of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and took her inside a room of the Naka and called the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant and Akhil came there. Akhil stood up on the stairs of the Naka and the appellant caught hold the hands of the prosecutrix (PW-1), gagged her mouth and took her inside a room. The prosecutrix (PW-1) tried to get rid of the possession of the appellant but the appellant made her lie down on the floor and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On her screaming, Bhuvneshwar (PW-3), Pannu (PW-4.) and Vishnu (PW-5) came there on seeing them, the appellant fled of from there. Vishnu (PW-5) beat the prosecutrix (PW-1). While committing forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant, bangles of the prosecutrix (PW-1) had broken and her ear ring had been removed from the ear. Akhil and Samrin Bai fled from there by jumping the wall. Samrin Bai is sister of Pannu (PW-4). The prosecutrix (PW-1) returned her home and informed about the incident to her father. Since the incident had taken place at about 2 O'clock in the night, therefore, she went to lodge a report in the next morning on 09.10.1995. Before lodging the report in the police Station, a meeting was called in the village in which the prosecutrix (PW-1) had narrated the incident. The prosecutrix (PW-1) lodged First Information Report (Ex.P-1). The prosecutrix (PW-1) was sent for medical examination. Dr. Amita Jha (PW-8) examined the prosecutrix (PW-1) and gave her report vide (Ex.P-8). The appellant was also sent for medical examination. Dr. Pardal (PW-11) examined the appellant and gave his report vide (Ex.P-11). Investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector B.N. Shukla (PW-12). During the investigation statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) IPC. The appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. Trial was conducted. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not examine any witness in his defence. The trial Court, after affording opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the parties, passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.