BADRIPRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

(2.) THE appellant and prosecutrix Sukhwatibai are residents of village Makodiya, Police Station Seoni -Malwa, District Roshangabad. The prosecutrix was a married girl aged about 19 to 20 years and she was residing with her husband and other relatives. On 23 -1 -1979 at about 4 p.m., she had to cut grass in the jungle. On the way near a Nola, the appellant caught hold of her and fell her down on the ground and then committed sexual intercourse with her. On hearing her cries, her grand father Jiyalal, aunt Rajkumari bai, and grand -mother Ajudahibai rushed there and they saw the appellant riding over the prosecutrix. He then ran away from the spot on seeing these persons. The prosecutrix went back home weeping and narrated the incident to her mother Shantibai, uncle Shivramand village Patel Alfred but since her father Ganesh was out of station and returned after 2/3 days, a report was lodged on his return on 28 -1 -1979. She was sent for medical examination. No injuries were found on her private parts, but there were 3 abrasions on her wrist. Her clothes and also the broken bangles from the place of incident were seized. After completing the investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted. His plea was of denial and false implication. According to him, his father had contested and won election against Patel Alfred and so he has concocted a false case against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix Sukhwati Bai (P.W. l), Jiyalal (P.W 2), Rajkumaribai (P.W. 3) Ajuddhibai (P.W. 4) and further corroborated by Ganeshram (P.W. 5), Shantibai (P.W. 6), Shivram (P.W. 7), and Alfred (P.W. 8) and the medical evidence, convicted the appellant. According to him, the delay in lodging the report has been explained and the injuries on her wrist could have been caused due to breaking of bangles while she was resisting forcible sexual intercourse.

(3.) IN fact, the delay in lodging the report after 8 days of incident is itself fatal. There is no proper explanation for this delay. The prosecution case is that on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, Sukhwatibai (P.W. 1) her grand -father Jiyalal (P.W. 2), aunt Rajkumaribai (P.W. 3) and Ajuddhibai (P.W.4) rushed there. This fact was also told to her mother Shantibai (P.W - 6), uncle Shivram (P.W. 7) and village Patil Alfred (P.W. 8). Only her father Ganesh (P. W. 5) was not present in the village. But that is hardly a ground for not lodging a report immediately. Even Ganesh on his return did not immediately lodge the report, but he got a report written from the village Patel which was submitted on the next day. This written report has not been produced. The prosecutrix claimed that on the date of incident, a report was lodged. This report has also not been produced. Shantibai, Rajkumaribai and Ahuddhibai claimed that the prosecutrix received bleeding injuries and her clothes were stained with blood. While Jiyalal did not say about any injury on her person. Though her blood stained clothes were seized, they were not sent for Chemical examination. Dr. (Smt.) Suhasini Sathe (P.W. 12) found abrasions on her wrist of 1/4" x 1/16", 1/4" x 1/ 0" and 1/3'' x 1/8" which were said to be of 6 -7 days old. Such superficial abrasions could be caused in so many ways and even could be self inflicted. No prefuse bleeding is expected from such injuries. It appears that the appellant might have tried to take liberty with the prosecutrix and exaggerated story of rape has been built up, may be at the instance of the village Patel who had to grind because the appellants father had won an election against him. All the witnesses are highly interested, witnesses and close relations.