GAJRAJSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the 16th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in the matter of Sessions Case No. 204/93 wherein the appellant has been convicted for committing an offence punishable under the provisions of S. 376 of I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default to undergo R.I. for six months. He has been also convicted for offence punishable u/S. 506, Pt. I, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. The amount of fine, if paid, is directed to be given to Lalkunwarbai, the prosecutrix.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that prosecutrix happens to be the daughter of the appellant. Near about 12th January, 1992 she was minor and was residing with the appellant in his hut in Sudamanagar, Indore. It is the prosecution case that Santosh and Manoharsingh, the brothers of the appellant approached P. W. Ramkunwarbai who happens to be the real sister of the mother of the prosecutrix Lalkunwar and requested her to take Lalkunwar in her custody from the hut of the appellant and in response to that she went to the hut of appellant at Sudamanagar and noticed that Lalkunwar was bleeding excessively per vagina. Ramkunwarbai brought Lalkunwar to her house and started asking her about the reason of the said bleeding. But Lalkunwar did not tell her about that till 14-1-1992 as she was in fear. When Ramkunwarbai asked Lalkunwar by affectionate way, she told her on 14-1-1992 that on 10-1-1992 her father the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her by threatening her and on account of that she was bleeding per vagina. Ram- kunwarbai went to her father Hirasingh and told him about what Lalkunwar had told her. Both Hirasingh and Ramkunwar Bai went to Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. against the appellant in that context. The investigation resulted in charge-sheet against the appellant who was tried before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who after recording and appreciating the evidence on record found the appellant guilty for the offences mentioned above and passed the order of conviction and sentence against him and that is put to challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Shri Panjwani, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge committed the error of accepting the prosecution evidence and rejecting the defence evidence and holding the appellant guilty of committing the rape on her own daughter. He submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the said charge of commission of the crime as the kiths and kins of the mother of Lalkunwar were against the appellant accusing him that he was responsible for causing the death of mother of Lalkunwar. Shri Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General, supported the judgment of the trial Court as correct, proper and legal by pointing out the evidence on record.