BIJIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in S.T. No. 231/90 for having committed rape which is punishable offence under S. 376 IPC.

(2.) THE trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo seven years RI. In addition to the custodial sentence, learned Sessions Judge has also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, the appellant is sentenced to undergo two months additional RI.

(3.) DURING the course of trial the prosecution apart from the expert evidence of doctors, as mentioned above, examined the prosecutrix PW 1, her mother, Shantibai PW 7, Chenna PW. 2, Munna, PW 6 who are material witnesses. From the evidence of the prosecutrix it is clear beyong reasonable doubt that she was sexually assaulted by the appellant against her wishes and she had narrated the whole incident to her mother PW 7 immediately after the incident. PW 7 Sahntibai has fully supported the version of prosecutrix. The version of the prosectrix is also corroborated by PW. 2 Chenna and PW 6 Munna who were with the prosecutrix at the time when appellant assaulted the prosecutrix and forced these two witnesses to ran away from the spot. No doubt it is clear from the record that PW 2 Chenna and PW 6 Munna both are child witnesses but the learned Sessions Judge put questions to ascertain their mental status so as to find out whether they understand the question to give proper and rational answers. After being satisfied that these two child witnesses are matured enough to understand the question to give proper and rational answer learned Sessions Judge proceeded to record their statements.