KUNJI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision application against the Judgment and order dated 13.2.1984 of Sessions Judge, Lalitpur dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1983 affirming the conviction of the applicant and co-accused Mulayam Singh under Section 376, l.P.C. and sentence of 2 1/2 years R.I. and the fine of Rs. 100 each. In default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for further three months each awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Lalitpur In S. T. No. 11 of 1983 by the judgment and order dated 21.6.1983.

(2.) IN the present case, Smt. Dhaniya (P.W. 5) was raped by the applicant and co-accused Mulayam Singh. Both the accused were arrested at the spot by the witnesses and other persons. The trial court believed the prosecution evidence of Rampa (P.W. 1), Ram Deen (P.W. 2), Dhaniya (P.W. 5) and Ram Swaroop (P.W. 6) rejecting the defence version and convicted and sentenced as stated above. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he was medically examined but no marks of external injury over prepase, glans, penis and scrotum was found. No smegma was found and no stains were found on his clothes. Hence the conviction and sentence of the applicant are bad in law. I have given anxious thought to the submission of learned counsel. Smt. Dhaniya deposed that both the accused committed rape upon her. When Mulayam Singh was in sexual act, Kunji Lal gagged her, similarly Mulayam Singh gagged her when Kunji Lal committed rape upon her. Ram Swaroop (P.W. 6) had deposed that on hearing the cries of victim, he ran and saw the accused Kunji Lai ravishing the victim, at that time Mulayam Singh was gagging her. Thus, the rape committed by the applicant has been established by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence produced.