GUDDU @ SHAILENDRA SAINI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 180/95 vide judgment dated 28.11.1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 18.12.1994 at about 7.00 PM, when the prosecutrix (PW-8) was alone in her house, she was called by the appellant, who was standing on the terrace of the house of Ram Lakhan Sharma (PW-1). The prosecutrix had gone there and thereafter it is alleged that the appellant initially pressed her breasts, the prosecutrix made hue and cry, but the appellant disrobed her and committed rape on her. It is further alleged that she made hue and cry but at that time the television was on and no one had come to rescue her. The appellant fled away from the spot and the prosecutrix was rushed to her house and told the incident to her mother and thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-6A) was lodged at P.S. Madan Mahal. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Dr. Pushpa Pandey (PW-2) examined her and prepared MLC (Ex.P-2). Her undergarment and pubic hairs were seized and slide of vaginal swab was prepared and handed over to the concerning constable. The appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-3). Slide of his spermatozoa was prepared and handed over to the concerning constable. The undergarment, pubic hairs and both the slides were sent to the FSL, Sagar. The Assistant Chemical Examiner found semen and spermatozoa on the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and slide of the appellant. However, semen found on the undergarment of the prosecutrix was not sufficient for examination of the Serologist.

(3.) After due investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted before committal Court, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter the case was sent for trial. The learned Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed the charge under Sections 376(1) of the IPC against the appellant.