MADURU ALIAS DAMRUWA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramrati, the prosecutrix was subjected to rape on September 22, 1988 at about 10.00 a.m. The appellant having found guilty by the trial Court for commission of offence has been convicted under Section 376, IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The present appeal is against his conviction and sentence.

(2.) The facts leading to prosecution, in brief, are that on September 22, 1988 when prosecutrix was going to answer the call of nature, she met with accused, who asked her to accompnay to Khudiya (Agriculturist's out-house). Accused forcibly, at the point of knife, dragged her to nearby Khudiya and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Her brother-in-law Komal (PW 2) came to the spot, saw the accused running towards public road. She had narrated the incident to Komal. Tulsiram (PW 3) was in the agricultural field. The incident was also narrated to him. Thereafter, Tulsiram visited the house of the accused but did not find him in the house. The report of incident was lodged on September 23, 1988, the next day at 13.00 hours. The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination. Dr. (Smt.) Mamta Mishra (PW 9) found it difficult to give definite opinion regarding rape as the prosecutrix is a married woman and habitual to sexual intercourse. Her clothes were seized so her vaginal smear slides were prepared as mentioned in the medical report (Ex. P. 12). The accused was medically examined. Medical examination report (Ex. P11) discloses that accused was found capable of sexual intercourse. The clothes underwear of the accused and vaginal smear slides petticoat of the prosecutrix and seminal slides were sent to chemical examiner for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, Report (Ex. P. 13) indicates that presence of human spermatozooa and semen was confirmed on all the Articles A, B, C, D, i.e., petticoat, underwear, slide of the accused and vaginal smear slide obtained from the prosecutrix. The accused abjured the guilt and contended that he was falsely implicated on account of previous enmity, the husband of the prosecutrix had obtained Rs. 2000/- for obtaining Patta and had not returned. On the date of incident he was not in the house and was working with contractor Chhotelal at Mungawali, Yasin Khan (DW 2) and Roop Singh (DW 3) had accompanied him to the place of work.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant on the ground that definite evidence has not been led in the case. He has submitted that by the side of public road no sexual intercourse could be committed. He submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated. Alternatively, he has submitted that it was a case of consent and as Komal had reached owing to which a case of rape has been concocted.