SAKIR AND IRFAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have filed this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 09/08/2011 passed in S.T. No. 71/2009 by Sessions Judge, Sheopur whereby appellant Sakir has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 450 and 506-B of IPC whereas appellant Irfan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/34, 450 and 506-B of IPC and both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/- each and six months RI respectively with default stipulations.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 23-24/09/2009, prosecutrix (name of prosecutrix is not mentioned to hide her identity) was sleeping in her house at village Baghwaj. Her husband has gone to bring milk from Khirkai. At about 12.00 am, appellants entered in her house after opening the door and caught hold of her on bed and thereafter, appellant Irfan after pressing her mouth caught hold of her hand and appellant Sakir committed rape with her. THEreafter, both the accused left the house after threating her that if she informed the incident to anybody she will be killed. In the morning, at about 7.00 am when her husband came, she narrated whole the incident to her husband and mother-in-law Wilkis and thereafter, she lodged the report at police station Sheopur. After investigation, police has filed challan against the appellants and learned trial Court after trial of the appellants convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has further drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of prosecutrix (PW/5) who in para 29 of her cross-examination has stated that after accused left her house, she cried by taking name of her mother-in-law. She has further stated that after the incident she closed the door from the inside and she went to the house of her mother-in-law in the morning at the time of Namaj. LEARNED counsel for the appellants has further submitted that prosecutrix in para 24 of her evidence has admitted that she brought her son in the night from the house of her mother-in- law but she has not went to her mother-in-law's house immediately after so called rape with her and she waited till morning when her husband came and thereafter she went to the house of her mother-in- law and told the incident to her. It is further stated by her that after she narrated the incident to her mother-in-law and husband, her husband went to his father for consultation and came back after half an hour and thereafter, they went to lodge the report.