ANIL BANIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case of the prosecution shows that on 26.11.1996 at about 8 PM the accused/appellant came to the house of the prosecutrix (PW-4) a married lady aged about 26 years at the relevant time, caught hold of her hands, threw her down, gagged her mouth and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Since her husband was at his work place, the report came to be lodged on 28.11.1996 after he got back. Medical examination of the prosecutrix took place, and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Sections 376, 450 and 323 IPC. The Court below however framed the charge under Sections 450, 376 IPC and 3(1)(xii) of the Schduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the "Special Act").

(2.) By the judgment impugned passed in Special Criminal Case No.250/1997, learned Court below acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge under Sections 450 IPC and 3(1)(xii) of the Special Act but has convicted him under Section 376(1) IPC and senteced to undergo RI for 7 years with payment of fine of Rs.2000, plus default stipulation. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence to show that he committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He submits that at the relevant time number of inmates were present in the house and therefore, it cannot be beileved that the accused/appellant committed the crime in question alleged against him. He further submits that though it has come in the evidence that after entering the house of the prosecutrix, the accused/appellant remained with her for the whole night and did not open the door even after being asked by the villagers to do so, the Court below has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for committing rape on the proesecutrix. State counsel however supports the judgment impugned.