GABBAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 374 of the Cr.P.C., against the judgment dtd. 13/6/2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.171/2014, whereby the appellant Gabbar @ Gopal has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Ss. 342, 376(2) of the IPC and under Ss. 3 / 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act and sentenced to undergo one year, ten years and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000.00, Rs.25,000.00 and Rs.25,000.00 respectively respectively with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 21/4/2014 at around 1.00 p.m. when the prosecutrix had gone to fetch water from the hand pump she saw that the appellant herein Gabbar @ Gopal had left certain rupees and his mobile near the hand pump. At the time she also heard the appellant shouting and asking her to bring his mobile and the rupees in his house. On this request the prosecutrix asked her uncle's daughter Sugna to bring the mobile and the rupees to the appellant but the appellant accused told her to come herself with his mobile and the rupees and when she went his house he pulled her in and also closed the door inside and he also pushed Sugna out and thereafter committed rape on her. But when the prosecutrix' mother Naurangbai came to his house at that time the appellant opened the door and the prosecutrix ran away from his house. She also narrated the incident to her parents as her parents were required to meet Prem Singh Patel to give him the money back to Boda and when they came back in the evening the First Information Report was lodged on the other day i.e. 24/4/2014. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed the case was committed to trial and after recording the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as hereinabove stated. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was an enmity going on between the parties with led to filing of the false complaint against the appellant and even the First Information Report has been lodged after undue delay of three days for which no explanation has been filed. Counsel has further submitted that the father of the prosecutrix had purchased a Television from the appellant for a consideration of Rs.5,000.00 and as her father could not pay the said amount to the appellant in order to avoid making the payment, a false case has been filed against the appellant. This fact was also admitted by the prosecutrix in para 7 of her crossexamination. It is further submitted that the medical evidence regarding the rape is also not conclusive as the hymen was old torn and there was no body injury either internal or external found on the person of the prosecutrix.