GEETABAI W/O NANURAM GAARI, AGED 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION - LABOURER, R/O SAGORE, DISTRICT DHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. SAGORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are dealt together since they arise out of a common judgment. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of both these appeals. These are the appeals of the year 1997 and they have been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. by accused appellants Geetabai, Kamlabai and Rajaram being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 27/3/1997 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Dhar in S.T.No.17/1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 250/ -each and for offence under Section 366 of the IPC they have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 250/ -each; in case of default of payment of the fine they were to undergo additional one month's imprisonment each.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that on 29/11/1994 at around 8 O'clock in the night when Rukmabai was pressing the legs of her aged mother Munnibai and her sister -in -law was also present at home, at that time Geetabai came to the house and called her outside. On coming outside accused Geetabai left the complainant Rukmabai in the custody of co -accused Kalu, Kamlabai and Narendra and left the house and all the three accused persons forcefully took her in a bus to Gujarat in village Halod and Chandrapur. Rukmabai was kept in their custody and co -accused Narendra had committed rape on her. A missing persons report was filed on the next day by Raju, the brother of Rukmabai at police station Sagore and on the basis of the report the crime was registered. In the month of September 1995 Rukmabai was recovered from the custody of accused Narendra. However, accused Narendra was absconding. After completion of the investigation the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested and duly committed to their trial.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix Rukmabai was more than 18 years of age according to Dr.V.K. Bhandari P.W. 1, who was examined the prosecutrix and the X -ray report indicates that the prosecutrix was more than 19 years of age. Similarly Counsel has submitted that Dr.(Smt.) J.P. Geed, who has conducted the external examination of the prosecutrix, has stated that no injury was sustained on her private parts. Moreover she was habitual to sex and more than six months without any complaint she lived with accused Narendra and she was travelled in many open places along with him. Moreover Counsel has pointed out that there was no sufficient evidence on record to make out the offence under s 363 and 366 of the IPC against these appellants. The offence of rape is alleged to have been committed by co -accused Narendra, who was absconding during the trial.