DAULAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant has challenged his conviction under Section 376 (1), IPC and sentence of seven years RI with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine one month's further R. I. ; conviction under Section 325, IPC and sentence of two years RI and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine one month's further RI; and, conviction under Section 323, IPC and sentence of one year RI, vide judgment dated 26-9-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda in Sessions Trial No. 16/2002.

(2.) AS per prosecution story, on 9-6-2001 at about 8 o'clock in the morning prosecutrix along with her mother Kesharbai had gone on a hilly track of Village Dhansinghpur for cutting woods. Prosecutrix was coming back with the woods. She was ahead of her mother. In the way one blackman pushed Kesharbai. She alongwith bundle of woods fell down. He pressed her neck and said "if you will cry, I will kill you". When prosecutrix tried to save her mother, that man gave one axe blow on the head of her mother. She started bleeding and became unconscious. Thereafter that man caught hold the prosecutrix, pressed her mouth, took her near the Tendu tree, put her on the earth and committed rape twice. Thereafter, prosecutrix came near her mother and tried to cry. That man came near the prosecutrix and said "he will kill her" and gave one axe blow on the head of the prosecutrix. She also started bleeding and thereafter he fled away from the spot. When complainant regained consciousness, she found that her mother was not there and had reached in the village. Prosecutrix also went in the village and narrated the story to Hukumsingh, Amarsingh, Dhansingh and Ramsingh and thereafter in the tractor of Nandlal prosecutrix and her mother both were taken to Police Station, Gyaraspur where report was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, against which the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) IN this appeal, I have heard Shri R. D. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M. P. S. Bhadoriya, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent-State. Shri Agarwal pointed out various infirmities in the prosecution evidence and submitted that there is no evidence of identification of the appellant. Identification Parade was arranged after 1-1/2 months and the delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The accused was already shown to the prosecutrix and witnesses and the appellant has been implicated falsely on the basis of suspicion. There is no reliable evidence against him, therefore, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. In reply, learned Counsel for the State has supported the judgment.