TRILOKI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.2.1996, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 273/94, convicting him under Section 376 of I.P.C. for R.I. seven years. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that, one Smt. Ganeshiabai, the complainant-prosecutrix along with her husband came to Bhopal for their livelihood as labour. Her husband being Meson, was working at some other place at Rajat Nagar, while the said Smt. Ganeshiabai, was working with the appellant on some plot no. 90, Neeraj Nagar. On dated 30.4.1994, the complainant was working as labour on the aforesaid plot with the appellant at about 11.00 O'clock in the morning, when she went inside the premises to bring the cement, at the same time, the appellant also entered in such premises and caught hold her. She tried to shout, but by giving the criminal intimidation, she was forcefully taken by the appellant into the bathroom where after throwing her on the floor by removing her cloths, he committed rape on her. After such incident prosecutrix came to her home, but her husband was not there, who came in the evening from his job, then after apprising him regarding aforesaid, she accompanied with him went to the Police Station Piplani, and lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) of the offence of Section 376 of I.P.C. against the appellant. She was sent to the hospital for her medical examination where after carrying out the same, the MLC report was prepared. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

(2.) After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge-sheet, on framing the charge of Section 376 of I.P.C. against the appellant, he abjured the guilt. On which, the trial was held. After recording the evidence on appreciation after holding guilty to the appellant under the aforesaid Section, he was punished with the abovementioned punishment, hence this appeal.

(3.) Shri Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Counsel for the appellant after taking me through the record of the trial Court argued that the story put forth by the prosecution has not been proved by any independent source of the evidence except the prosecutrix and her husband. Any of the independent witness has not stated any incriminating thing against the appellant showing his involvement with the alleged offence. In this respect, he also referred the deposition of the defence witnesses namely; Shivwati (DW-1), Haragram (DW-2) and Gourishanker (DW-3). He further argued that in support of the testimony of the prosecutrix and her husband-Rajendra, the concerning doctor, who prepared the MLC report of the prosecutrix, has also not been examined. In the lack of such material medical evidence to prove the alleged rape on the person of the prosecutrix mere on the basis of oral testimony of the prosecutrix and her husband, the impugned conviction of the appellant could not be sustained. He further argued that the story put forth by the prosecution has also not been supported by the FSL report relating to the slide of the vaginal fluids of the prosecutrix and prayed for acquittal of the appellant by allowing this appeal. He also placed his reliance on the case laws in the matter of Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2006 10 SCC 92, in the matter of Nandlal Yadav vs. State of M.P., 2002 2 MPLJ 376 and in the matter of Bibhishan vs. State of M.P., 2007 12 SCC 390.