RAJU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.1999 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior M.P. in Sessions Trial No. 99/1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 342 and 376 (2) (g) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/ -respectively with stipulation of sentence in default of depositing the fine. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 27.9.1998 one Arun Pratap Singh (complainant) lodged a First Information Report at police station Janakganj, Lashkar, Gwalior contending that today at about 8.30 in the morning his sister the prosecutrix went to the market to purchase rubber band and when she did not come back for a longer period then he tried to trace her, but could not get success. His parents had gone outside in connection with some work. When he came back to his residence at about 1.00 'O' Clock after tracing out his sister at the same time his sister the prosecutrix came and apprised him that while she was going towards market to purchase rubber band, on the way in front of the house of the appellant she was asked by him that he has some work from her father and in continuation of it he took her in his home and detained her in a room where one Raje Mehtar was also present. She was asked by the appellant to place 'Sindur' on her forehead but she refused for the same, on which, she was subjected to beaten by means of fist on her face and chest, thereafter, her undergarment was removed. The appellant had also removed his clothes and inter his private part in her private part and thereby he has committed rape. In the course of performing such act, she tried to cry but her mouth was gagged by showing a knife. Subsequent to the appellant Raje Mehtar had also committed such act of rape on her and on her crying again she was subjected to beaten by means of fist and she was forced to wear her undergarment and clothes. It is also stated that due to such act of the appellant, the blood was profused from her private part as well as from her mouth. She was detained in such room for near about 4 & 1/2 hour and at about 1.00 'O' Clock when the door was opened then she came back to her house. Thereafter, she accompanied with her brother came to the police station and lodged First Information Report (Ex. P -1). On lodging of such report, offence punishable under sections 342 and 376 (2) (g) of Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and necessary papers with respect to the spot and the incident were prepared. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix was sent to the hospital for her medical examination where her MLC report was prepared as well as ossification test was carried out. Interrogative statements of the witnesses were recorded and on disclosing information by the accused alleged knife was recovered. On completion of the investigation, the ingredients of the alleged offence punishable under sections 342 and 376 (2) (g) of Indian Penal Code were made out against the appellant while the co -accused Raje Mehtar could not be traced out, on which, the appellant was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

(2.) AFTER committing the case to the sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge -sheet the charges of sections 342 and 376 (2) (g) of Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant, he abjured his guilt, on which, evidence was recorded and on appreciation of the same after holding guilty to the appellant for the charged, he was punished with the punishment as stated above. Being dis -satisfied with such judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State by justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence said that the conviction of the appellant being based on proper appreciation of the evidence is in conformity with law. It does not require any interference at this stage either for extending the benefit of acquittal to the appellant or in any case for reducing the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. In continuation, he said that looking to the nature of the offence in which the appellant has committed the alleged rape with the assistance of his friend on a minor girl below the age of 12 years, he does not deserve for adopting any leniency to reduce the jail sentence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.