STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAJU ALIAS RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Raju alias Rajesh, son of Hiralal Khatwani, resident of village Sarona, Police Station Narharpur, District Bastar, was prosecuted for offences under section 342, 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code but he was acquitted of the said offences by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar as Jagdalpur (Camp Kanker), vide judgment dated 15.11.1984, passed in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 1983, and, being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal under section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after obtaining leave of this Court under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Sonaibai daughter of Phulsingh, was a resident of village Dumarpani, Tahsil Kanker, District Bastar, and she had gone to village Selebhat as a guest to the house of her brother -in -law. On the date of the incident, i.e. 1.5.1983, in the morning at about 9 -00 A.M. she had gone, along with her sister Sonbati, to the mill of Hira Seth situate at village Sarona, to get the Dhan of her brother -in -law pounded. They had reached the mill before the other customers and, so, Sonaibai requested that their Dhan should be pounded first, but she was told to keep the Dhan and it would be pounded later on and the Dhan of the other persons, who had reached the mill after her, was pounded first. Subsequently, the Dhan, taken by Sonaibai and her sister to the mill, was pounded and, after this, when Sonaibai was giving the price for pounding the Dhan, at that time, accused Raju son of Hira Seth, came there and he told her to come inside and, then, he would take the money. When both the sisters declined to go inside, then the accused Raju caught both the sisters with one hand each and started dragging them and inside one room, he locked Sonbati, and took Sonaibai to another room and looked the doors from inside and forcibly committed rape on her, and when she cried, he shut her mouth with his hands. After completing the act of rape, Sonaibai was sent out -side by opening the door towars Badi side. Sonbati had opened the door and had gone outside and had informed about this incident at the hotel of Rudeshwar. Persons ran, but they found that the front door was locked. Sonaibai then narrated the incident to her sister Sonbati and also at the hotel of Rudeshwar at village Sarona, which was situated near the mill. The incident was also narrated by Sonaibai to her parents, but, as her father was very aged, hence she had gone with her relations Budhiyar and Ram Prasad to Dudhawa Bazaar to the shop of her brother -in -law Kartikram and had informed him about the incident, but, as there was a crowd at his shop, and, so, in the evening, she went along with Kartikram to Police Chowki Dudhawa, where a written report (Ex. P -1) was handed over to the Incharge of Police -Chowki Dudhawa. The Sari and the petti -coat, which the prosecutrix Sonabai was wearing, were seized at that very time -vide seizure -memo (Ex. P -2). Offences under section 376 and 342 of I.P.C. were registered at Crime No. 0/83 at Police Out -post Dudhawa.

(3.) RESPONDENT Raju had pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him before the Sessions Court. The defence of respondent Raju was that he was not present at the rice -mill and he had not talked to Sonaibai and her sister and that, he had not taken them inside the room and nor had he committed rape on Sonaibai, by locking her inside the room. According to Raju, the persons of Nav Yuvak Mandal bore enmity against him and it is at their instance, that Sonaibai had got instituted the false case against him. The respondent Raju, in his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., had admitted that he was the son of the mill -owner Hira Seth and he had further admitted that, on Sunday, Sonaibai, along with her sister, had come to the mill at village Sarona to get their Dhan pounded. The fact that he (Raju) had been sent by the police for being medically examined, was also not denied.