BHULAU Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Kabirdham (Kavardha), in Sessions Trial No. 38/2005 convicting the accused/Appellant under Sections 376 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 5000 under Section 376 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, with default stipulations.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.5.2005 at about 7 p.m. when the prosecutrix (P.W. 6) who apart from being blind by birth is 80 per cent physically disabled also due to the impairment in all her four limbs, was sleeping in her house, accused/Appellant came there and after removing her cloths committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Though the prosecutrix could not see the Appellant committing the offence, she had heard his voice while he was threatening her to throw in the river in case she raised an alarm. Further case of the prosecution is that on 31.5.2005 the accused/Appellant had again come to the house of the prosecutrix and when he was talking to her grand mother Parvati Bai (P.W. 8), the prosecutrix on hearing his voice started hurling abuses and said it was the person who committed rape on her 8 days ago there from. Thereafter, the FIR (P-7) was lodged on 31.5.2005. On 1.6.2005 the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Kawardha vide Ex. P-19 where she was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Premlata Jangde (P.W. 3) who vide her report (Ex. P-3) opined that the prosecutrix was blind, both her legs were impaired and she was unable to move. She further opined that hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured and on insertion of two fingers in the vagina of the prosecutrix it was bleeding and she was complaining pain. She also opined that no definite opinion regarding commission of rape could be given. Accused/Appellant was also sent for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Kawardha vide Ex. P-14 where Dr. N.K. Yadu (P.W. 5) examined him and vide his report Ex. P-5 opined that he was capable of having sexual intercourse. Though the vaginal slides of the prosecutrix were prepared and sent for chemical examination, report of the same could not be obtained by the prosecution. After recording the statements of the witnesses the charge sheet was filed.

(3.) AFTER affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted and sentenced the accused Appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.