RAM KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Present petition the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 7 th July, 2010 convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC and the order on sentence dated 11 th July, 2000 whereby he has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that on the basis of same evidence, co-accused Raj Kumar has been acquitted however, the Appellant has been convicted. The Appellant is the only person, who has been convicted as the main accused Bannu Lal died during trial. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that on the night of 31 st March, 1992, the prosecutrix left her house in the company of Bannu Lal. The FIR was registered by PW3 Sunder Lal, father of the prosecutrix against Bannu Lal only. The prosecutrix and PW3 her father have stated that when the prosecutrix came with Bannu Lal to their house, the wife of the Appellant asked them to leave. It is further alleged that when the Appellant took her to drop at her house, he committed rape on her. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix. She herself states that she voluntarily had sexual intercourse with Bannu Lal. There is no medical evidence to corroborate her testimony, which is full of contradictions. Further the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted immediately and there is no evidence of forced rape. There is no other evidence that the Appellant committed rape on her. In the MLC it is not clarified which brother-in-law of Bannu Lal committed rape. The statement being vague the Appellant cannot be convicted for the same. Thus in view of the glaring contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Appellant be acquitted of the charges framed.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that though the prosecutrix stated that first Bani Lal and then the Appellant committed rape on her, this fact she has not only stated in her statement recorded but also stands recorded in the MLC to the doctor Ex.PW10/A. The prosecutrix was recovered from the spot and there were mark of injury on the body thus corroborating her version. In view of the cogent and convincing testimony of the prosecutrix and her father no case for acquittal is made out. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.