ABHAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants in this case have been convicted under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Notices have also been issued to them, why their sentence be not enhanced as the minimum prescribed sentence under Section 376 I.P.C. is seven years.

(2.) The prosecutrix Poonam (P.W. 1) aged 18 years is a married woman. According to her version in the witness box, on 6.10.1990 at about 7.00 in the evening when she had gone to a field for easing herself, the two accused persons committed rape on her against her wish. According to the medical opinion of lady doctor Lalita Gupta (P.W. 4), there were no marks of any injury on the person of the prosecutrix and since she was accustomed to sexual intercourse, no definite opinion could be formed whether any rape was committed on her. The learned trial Judge placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which is corroborated to some extent, by the other witnesses concerning the connected circumstances, held the accused guilty of the offence and punished them with sentences mentioned above.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the accused persons assails the conviction on two grounds. It is urged that there is no evidence on record in proof of commission of rape. It is next urged that the circumstances and the statement of the prosecutrix go to prove that she was a consenting party, if at all and intercourse had taken place between her and the accused. On the question of notices for enhancement of sentence, the learned counsel for the accused submits that since the accused persons are first offenders and of young age, less than minimum prescribed sentence could be imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.