RAVI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.12.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 96/02 whereby the appellants have been convicted of offence under section 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) AS per prosecution case, on 30.3.2002, parents of the prosecutrix had gone from their village Kareli to village Kacharkona. The prosecutrix, her brother Ramkumar (PW 8) and her cousin Sunil Kumar (PW 9) were in the house. In the night at about 2:00 a.m. the prosecutrix woke up from her sleep for urination. When she was urinating in the courtyard, the appellants who were sitting in the dark pounced on the prosecutrix and gagged her mouth. The appellants then carried her to an open ground behind the house of one Girjabai. After reaching there they threatened her not to make a noise else they will kill her. Thereafter, the appellants committed rape on her one after another. After this, both the appellants again threatened the prosecutrix not to inform about this incident to anyone else they will kill her. Thereafter prosecutrix came to home and slept. On the next morning, the prosecutrix alongwith her brother Ramkumar (PW 8) went to her aunt Prabhabai (PW 6) and narrated the incident to her. Prabhabai (PW 6) advised the prosecutrix to wait till her mother returns from village Kacharkona. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents when they returned. Thereafter, Ramdas (PW 5) father, Geetabai (PW 7) mother of the prosecutrix and Ramkumar (PW 8) brother took the prosecutrix to the police station, Kareli where the prosecutrix lodged the FIR Ex. P-7.

(3.) SHRI V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the trial Court was in error in holding that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years; the evidence of the prosecutrix is not reliable; her version is not supported by the medical evidence Ex. P-1-A. On the other hand Shri Vivekanand Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent has contended that the evidence about the age of the prosecutrix being below 16 years is fully trustworthy. He also contended that the prosecutrix version is fully reliable and in such circumstances even though the medical report Ex. P-1-A does not support the prosecution case about commission of rape, the judgment of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal.