MANGU ALIAS MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and finding dated 7-5-1992 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S. T. No. 21/91 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC and sentencing to under Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 200a in default, Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and also one year Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 342, IPC.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 18th May, 1990 Kamlabai (P. W. 7) the mother of prosecutrix Kailashbai (P. W. 5) was not in the house, at the relevant time, in the noon, prosecutrix Kailashbai had gone to answer the call of nature at the out skirt of the village, at that time, she was caught by the appellant and taken to the cattle house of one Raisingh Mori. It has also alleged by the prosecution that in the evening at 4. 00 PM at the point of knife the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her consent and Will. She was also threatened not to disclose this fact to anybody. She fell unconscious. The mother and father alongwith maternal uncle of the prosecutrix reached the place of the incident while searching the prosecutrix and rescued the prosecutrix after opening the door of the cattle house. The prosecutrix disclosed the incident before them. Father of the prosecutrix was going to lodge report to the police station but he was suggested by Bapusingh (P. W. 4) not to lodge report in the police station because the same would lower down the prestige of their family but on 20-5-90 when maternal uncle Bapusingh came to their house, he suggested for lodging the report, hence report Exh. P-4 was lodged in the night at about 10. 00 PM at Police Station, Tal situated about 25-26 kilometers. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) THE appellant has denied the charges and his defence was that the prosecutrix Kailashbai wanted to have second marriage with the appellant (NATRA) and as such she was the consenting party. It was also the defence of the appellant that since he was not having sufficient money for the performance of the NATRA he was got assaulted by villagers and relations of the prosecutrix because of which he had sustained injuries on his person. The appellant lodged report Ex. D-1 in the police station on the basis of which police registered the offence under Sections 324/34, IPC against the father of the prosecutrix named Ramchand and villagers. He has also taken the defence that the prosecutrix was the consenting party and having relations with him since last 2 years. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and got proved 7 documents whereas the appellant has examined only one witness Kalkasingh Parihar (D. W. 1) ASI and got proved his report Ex. D-1, dated 19-5-90. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as mentioned above.