GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/accused has directed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.9.2003 passed by Session Judge, Vidisha in S. T. No. 17/03 whereby acquitting the appellant from the charge punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 456 of IPC with a direction to undergo R1 for three years with fine of Rs. 5000/-. in default of depositing the fine further three months imprisonment.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 2.12.2002 at about 10.00 O'clock in the night one Radhabai went to her old family house to answer the call of nature, where on her entrance in such house the appellant caught hold her hands, consequently the kerosene lamp (Chimni) fell down from her hand but prior to that she identified the appellant in the light of such lamp. Thereafter she was taken by him in a room where the stock of cow dung was laying. In side of such room the prosecutrix was thrown on the floor and after turning her sari and petikot to the upper side he removed her under garment and tried to commit forcefully intercourse with her, on her crying by giving a criminal threat to her life he rapped her, by the time her husband and father-in-law came there, on which the appellant ran away from such place. Subsequent to incident on the next day at about 2.30 p. m. said Radhabai went to P. S. Gyaraspur and lodged the report, on which after registering the crime against the appellant for the offence under Section 376(1), 450 and 506 of IPC the investigation was carried out. After holding the same the appellant was charge sheeted for such offences.

(3.) After committing the case to the Sessions court, considering the papers of the charge-sheet and the police report the charge of Section 450 and 376(1) were framed against the appellant, on which he abjured the guilt. Thereafter, the trial was held in which as many as eleven prosecution witnesses were examined. On appreciation of evidence by holding the case of consent the appellant was acquitted from the charge of Section 376(1) of IPC while on further appreciation of same evidence instead under Section 450 of IPC he was held guilty for the offence under Section 456 of IPC and punished with the above mentioned sentence and fine. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence the appellant has come to this court with this appeal.