INDRAJEET Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.6.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in ST. No.142/1996 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of I.P.C and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment in addition.

(2.) The prosecution's case in short is that on 9.6.1996 at about 5.45 p.m the prosecutrix (PW1) had lodged an FIR (Ex.P/4) at Police Station, Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol that she was 14 years aged girl, who was visiting to the Primary School, Semra to make midday meals in absence of her mother and the appellant was a teacher in that School. 5-6 months prior to the FIR one day the appellant took her forcefully in the room and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the appellant did such an act for so many time. The appellant had detained her till the closure of the School and thereafter, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix for so many times. The prosecutrix went to the house of her maternal aunt at Beohari and thereafter her cousin Vidya (PW6) had asked about the enlargement of her abdomen and thereafter the prosecutrix told the entire mis-happenings to her and Indravati (PW2) mother of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was taken by her mother Indravati (PW2) to her house at Semra (Police Station Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol) and her father was also informed about the incidents and thereafter a report was lodged. The prosecutrix was directed for her medico legal examination. Dr. N.P. Dwivedi (PW8) examined the prosecutrix and gave his report Ex.P/7. The pregnancy of 30-32 weeks was found to the prosecutrix and her age was assessed by Dr. Dwivedi to be 16 years. She was referred for ossification test. Dr. N.K. Soni (PW7) after examining the prosecutrix radiologically gave his report Ex.P/7. He found the radiological age of the prosecutrix to be 17-20 years. The appellant was also arrested and he was directed for his medico legal examination. Dr. Sampurnanand (PW4) examined the appellant and gave his report Ex.P/3. No abnormality was found but it was found that a V.T operation was done to the appellant. However, two slides of semen sample were prepared and handed over to the concerned Constable for sealing. These slides were sent for forensic science analysis and in the report Ex.P/10 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was found that in the sample given by the appellant sperms were found whereas, the slides prepared from vaginal swab of the prosecutrix no semen particle or sperms were found. After due investigation a charge sheet was submitted before the JMFC Beohari who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Shahdol and ultimately it was transferred to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, Camp at Beohari.

(3.) The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. No defence evidence was adduced.