RAMU Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ramu @ Ramsingh under Sec. 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dtd. 25/04/2009 passed in S.T. No.315/2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) whereby finding the appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has convicted the appellant as under:-

(2.) In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Jaamsingh the brother of complainant PW/1 Gangaram R/o Village Umarkot, District Jhabua was residing at I.T.I. ground, Indore with his family in a hut and was engaged in labour. Nearby to his hut, the appellant had also erected a tent from which he used to sell different medicines, herbs etc. It is alleged that on 31/05/2007, after having lunch, complainant PW/1 Gamgaram went to the hut of his brother Jamsingh and in his hut, his wife Bablibai (PW/4), mother-in-law Kammabai (PW/2) and his daughter, the prosecutrix (PW/3) as also his son were present.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that when the mother-in-law (PW/2) of the complainant went to answer the call of nature, the prosecutrix who was aged 4 years also went behind her; at that time, the appellant Ramu @ Ramsingh called her in his tent on the pretext of given her a rupee, and thereafter, as the mother-in-law of the complainant Kammabai (PW/2) was also sitting nearby, she heard the cries of the prosecutrix, Kammabai also raised an alarm to save the prosecutrix, to which, complainant PW/1 Gamgaram came out and heard his daughter's cries from the tent of appellant and when he went into the tent of the appellant, he saw that his daughter was lying on the ground and was bleeding from her vagina whereas the appellant Ramu who was naked, was wearing his underwear and ran away from the spot soon after he saw the Gangaram entering into his tent. The prosecutrix informed the complainant that Ramu had called her to his tent to give one rupee and thereafter committed rape on her. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital and was examined by PW/7 Dr. Ranjana Patidar who also saw that the prosecutrix was bleeding from her vagina and her hymen had third digree perineal tear and was also bleeding. A case was registered against the appellant under Sec. 342, 376 of IPC read with Sec. 3(1)12 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigation ensued and the charge sheet was filed. It was committed to the trial Court who after recording evidence has convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.