MEHATARU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Durg District Durg in Sessions Case No. 90/1998, wherein the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 450 and 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,00/- under Section 376 IPC, Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 450 IPC plus default stipulations. Both the jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Before the trial court, the deaf and dumb victim who is alleged to have been subjected to rape by the accused/appellant was examined as PW-1. FIR (EX.P-2) was lodged by her husband namely Lokpal Jangade (PW-2) as was disclosed to him by her through gestures. It is apparent from her evidence that on 19.09.1997 at about 7.00 AM she was all alone in her house and while cooking food, the appellant came there and asked for fire to light bidi. It is alleged that after smoking bidi, he caught hold of her hands, threw her down on the ground, upturned her clothes, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and ran away. After arrival of her husband (PW-2) she narrated the entire incident to him through gestures and on coming to know the same, he along with the prosecutrix (PW-1) went to the Police Station and the report was lodged. After recording her statement under Section 161 CrPC through the interpretor marked as Ex.P-1 she was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 450 and 376 IPC followed by charge being framed accordingly.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the prosecutrix being deaf and dumb, her testimony cannot be made basis for conviction of the accused/appellant under Sections 450 and 376 IPC, particularly when the medical evidence does not corroborate her version. Absence of any external injury on her body goes to show that she did not offer resistance to the act of the accused/appellant and therefore, the inference can be drawn that the act between the two was consensual. It is submitted that there is no evidence to show that the people of neighbourhood heard any hue and cry which is supposed to have been made by a rape victim as the incident had taken place in the early morning.