BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is in custody in Crime No. 35/94, registered for the offences under section 376, 366, 452, 323 of IPC and Section 3 (i) and (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) THE prosecutrix is stated to have informed one Nawab Singh of the incident, who had gone to call the Police Seondha, and thereafter, it is stated that Police Seondha apprehended the applicant, who was accompanying the prosecutrix at the relevant time, and the report of the incident was lodged by the Prosecutrix. Shri Shukla submits that the statement of Nawab Singh has not been recorded by the Police. Nawab Singh was the first witness to whom the narration of the incident was given by the prosecutrix and who had gone to Police Seondha to seek the Police aid. The Police is stated to have apprehended the applicant in the company of the prosecutrix. The very circumstance under which the prosetutrix was in the company of the applicant, could be explained by Nawab Singh alone.

(3.) THE prosecutrix was subjected to the medical examination. On the external examination, some injuries were found on her body, which corroborate the assault on her by co -accused Babuji. The lady doctor, who had examined the · prosecutrix, could not give, any opinion about the rape on the lady. From the version of the prosecutrix herself, it appears that her son was involved in the kidnapping/abduction of a girl named Mamta, the sister of Co -accused Tundi, along with one co -accused Girraj, and there was an effort to know the whereabouts of the prosecutrix's son. In order to get the information, she appears to be assaulted.