SURESH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.8.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Bastar in Sessions Trial No. 354/2004 convicting the Appellant No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 341, 323 and 506B IPC of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 2000 Under Section 376(2)(g), rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 500 Under Section 323, simple imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs. 100 Under Section 341 and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500 Under Section 506B IPC plus default stipulations, and convicting the Appellant No. 2 under Section 376(2)(g) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 2000 plus default stipulations.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that on 4.10.2004 FIR (Ex. P-4) was lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) aged about 22 years alleging that on 3.10.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. when she was returning home on bicycle from her workplace on the way she was stopped by Appellant Suresh Mandal, taken to nearby plot where he showed his desire to have sex with her. It is further alleged that when the prosecutrix refused to succumb to his demand, she was beaten by him. It is alleged that some how she managed to flee away from the clutches of Appellant Suresh Mandal and then report was lodged by her. On the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix offences under Sections 354, 342, 34, 323 and 506 IPC were registered against the accused persons. Thereafter, she was sent for medical examination to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where Dr. (Smt.) S. Thakur (P.W. 3) examined her and found some injuries on her private part. According to this witness, on internal examination of the prosecutrix she found that on touching her private part the prosecutrix was complaining pain, there was erosion in the periphery of her private part and the prosecutrix was opined to have been subjected to rape. After medical examination of the prosecutrix, her statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she has stated that she was subjected to rape by Appellant No. 1 and when the intercourse was being committed, Appellant Rajkumar was put on guard to watch the situation.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/Appellants for the offences mentioned above.