RAJU KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal from jail, the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has called in question the legal propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd March, 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1999 whereby he has convicted the accused of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'ipc') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years' and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of six months on each count, with a further stipulation that the sentences would be consecutive.

(2.) PROSECUTION version, shorn of unnecessary details, is as follows :-On 27-6-1999 at about 11 a. m. , Rani Kachhi, the prosecutrix, a blind woman, who was sustaining herself by receiving alms was inside her house. At that juncture, the accused who was a resident of the locality, entered into the house and tried to offer money to the child of the prosecutrix, which was not appreciated by the prosecutrix and she questioned the accused relating to such act of the accused. The accused, in reply, stated that by giving the money to the child, he was earning Punya and accordingly, he have Rs. 10/- which was snatched away by the prosecutrix who thereafter asked the accused to leave the premises. Despite the protest raised, the accused did not leave the premises and gave money to the 9 year daughter Bhagwati and other children. On receipt of the said money, the children went out and at that point of time, the accused caught hold of the prosecutrix and when she tried to shout, he gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. It is the further case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix though blind was able to identify the accused from his voice. Immediately after the act was committed, the prosecutrix proceeded to the police station and reported the matter. The criminal law being set in motion, the Investigating Agency got the prosecutrix medically examined, seized the wearing apparel of the prosecutrix, sent them to the State Forensic Laboratory at Sagar for examination, prepared the spot map, examined certain witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and eventually placed the charge-sheet in the Competent Court, which, in turn, committed the matter to the learned Trial Judge.

(3.) THE accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The prosecution in furtherance of its case, examined six witnesses. P. W. 1 is Dr. Madhu Jain, who had examined the prosecutrix; P. W. 2 is the prosecutrix herself; P. W. 3 is Bhagwati, the daughter of the prosccutrix; P. Ws. 4 and 5 are Sheela and Kalicharan, who have turned hostile; and, P. W, 6 is the Investigating Officer. Apart from the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution, it also got certain documents exhibited.