BHIKHABHAI GALBABHAI KOROT(CHAUDHARI) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a convict for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' in brief) arising from the Sessions Case NO. 10 of 2014, whereby, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for five years vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (for short, 'the trial Court').

(2.) The facts in capsulized form, as revealed by the prosecution, are that the victim-prosecutrix is staying with her elder sister at village Takarwada, since, her treatment for mental disorder was going on. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.10.2013, at around 09:00 a.m., she went to the outskirts of Takarwada for grazing her cattle. The appellant is also alleged to have visited her at around 12:00 p.m. and started molesting her. He is also alleged to have committed rape and when she shouted for help, her elder sister Hiraben rushed to the place and the appellant had fled.

(3.) This Court has heard the learned Advocate, Mr. Majmudar, appearing along with learned Advocate, Mr. Sundesha, for the appellant. He has urged that the prosecutrix's version is wholly unreliable for various reasons and he has pointed out that none of the details she has narrated is being supported by the medical evidence. There is no eye-witness at the place, where more than 300 cattle were grazing. He, further, has urged that it is unfortunate to rely on the evidence of the prosecutrix, particularly, when it is pointed out by the appellant as to how a dispute exists of the plot, on which brother-in-law of the prosecutrix has an eye. He also had taken this Court through various other oral as well as documentary evidences to bring home the point that this is a case, where, the trial Court has mis-applied the law to the facts and also had wrongly interpreted the evidence. He has relied on the following decisions in support of his case: