LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.8.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria in S.T.No.1631999 convicting each of the accusedappellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 363 and 366 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for 10 years, pay a fine of Rs.200; RI for 3 years, pay a fine of Rs.200; and RI for 3 years, pay a fine of Rs.200 with default stipulations respectively.

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 25.2.1999 at about 8 pm when the prosecutrix came out from her house to attend the call of nature, the appellants caught hold of her, took her to a nearby kitchen garden, when she tried to raise alarm, appellant No.3 Rama gagged her mouth by inserting a piece of cloth and then appellants No. 1 and 2 (Laxman and Shivprasad) committed rape upon her one after another. Unnumbered FIR (Ex.P1) was registered at the instance of prosecutrix on 26.2.1999 at 10 am at Police Outpost Charcha and thereafter numbered FIR (Ex.P14) was registered on the same day at 2.30 pm against the appellants under Sections 37634 of IPC. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination which was conducted by PW13 Dr. Shobha Chaturvedi vide Ex.P13. As per medical report, no definite opinion could be given by the doctor regarding forcible sexual intercourse and there was no injury, either external or internal, on her person. Vaginal slides of the prosecutrix were prepared as Articles C1 and C2 and sent to FSL. Likewise, petticoat of the prosecutrix (Article A) and underwear of accusedappellant Laxman (Article B) were also seized and sent to FSL. As per unexhibited FSL report, spermatozoa was found on all these articles. Appellants Laxman and Shivprasad were also medically examined by PW7 Dr. DK Chikanjuri and they were found capable of performing sexual intercourse vide Ex.P9A and P10A respectively. To determine the age of the prosecutrix, she was sent for xray examination and as per report Ex.P11 of the Radiologist (PW8 Dr. MK Jain), her radiological age was found to be 1416 years. After filing of charge sheet, the trial Judge framed charges under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of IPC against the accusedappellants.

(3.) So as to hold the accusedappellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statements of the accusedappellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence they examined one Dr. Rajni Sharma as DW1.