NANDLAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge Tikamgarh, in the Sessions Trial No. 112/87, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted of offences under Ss. 376 and 342 and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and 1 year R.I. respectively.

(2.) Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that appellant Nandlal Yadav was working as a Meth (Supervisor), being the incharge of supply of materials, in a construction work of a hospiral, at Village Vaisa, where prosecutrix Harbu (also referred to by name 'Awadh') was also working as a labourer. On the date of incident i.e. 2-4-1987 at about 12 O'clock in the day time, the appellant asked the prosecutrix to bring some utensils from his house situated at a distance of about a furlong from the place of work. At that time a number of other labourers including Chiman (PW/4) were also present. When the prosecutrix went inside a rear side room of the house to bring utensils, the appellant, taking advantage of that situation, entered the room and bolted the door from inside. He threw the prosecutrix on the ground, gagged her with a towel and performed forcible sexual intercourse. Thereafter the accused came out and the prosecutrix bewailingly went straight to her house which was situated at a distance of about a furlong from that of the appellant and informed her mother-in-law Suggun (PW/2) about the incident. A report of the incident (Ex. P1) was lodged after two days on 4-4-1987 by the prosecutrix who was accompanied by her husband Pritam (not examined). The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Her clothes, said to be stained with semen, were seized and sent for Chemical Examination. The accused was arrested after about 52 days. After investigation, a challan was laid and charges were drawn up. The accused denied the charges and pleaded false implication on account of a grudge harboured by Pritam, husband of the prosecutrix, who had been stopped by the appellant from constructing a house by the side of his house on a Government land. The trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence on records, recorded the above convictions and sentences against the accused, mainly on the ground that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not suffer from any serious infirmity and it is fully corroborated by the testimony of her mother-in-law, Suggun (PW/2).

(3.) Heard Shri S. C. Datt, Senior Counsel, with Shri Sidharth Datt, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri R. K. Verma, Panel Lawyer, for the State. Shri Datt led the Court through the appeal records and pointed out certain infirmities in the impugned judgment. He contended that the defence of the appellant was of complete denial whereas the learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on a wrong premise as whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party. He further contended that the FIR was lodged after inordinate delay and it did not contain a mention of calling a Panchayat to settle the matter, nor did it contain an explanation for lodging a delayed FIR. The defence, further-more, contended that the medical examination of the prosecutrix did not notice any injury, not even a minor abrasion, nor could the doctor give a definite opinion about the sexual intercourse. The doctor, who conducted the medical examination, was not produced to prove the report. The defence also contended that, on her own admission, when the prosecutrix reached the house of the appellant, his 13 years old daughter, Meva, examined as (DW/2), was present there and she had asked the prosecutrix to go to the rear side room for collecting the utensils. The defence questioned as why Pritam, husband of the prosecutrix, who accompanied her to the Police Station for loding a report, was not produced as a prosecution witness. It was pointed out that according to the prosecutrix, Village Panchayat was called to settle the matter which could not succeed as the Panchayat did not believe in her version of the incident. Further, the prosecutrix admitted in her cross-examination that at the instance of her family members she sat for two days on the door of the accused for settling the matter. Her statement also revealed that she returned from the mid way to the Police Station on the persuasion of the accused. On the other hand, Shri R. K. Verma appearing for the State, heavily relied on the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother-in-law and contended that the impugned judgment is well merited and does not call for interference in appeal.