RAM SWAROOP PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is preferred by the accused/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.5.2010 passed by the 6th ADJ, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.240/09. By the impugned judgment, the trial judge convicted the appellant for commission of offence under section 376,and 506 -B of the IPC with direction to undergo for RI 10 years in the first count while RI three year in the last count.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix was a student of Class -8th of Middle School, Nathpur in which appellant was the teacher. He had been teaching English. On 6.8.09, at about 12.30, prosecutrix was alone in her house. Her father had gone to his field. Appellant came to the house of the prosecutrix and asked her to take money of the milk. Thereafter, he had taken her to the Bagar house and locked the door from inside and tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, he laid a bed -sheet and the prosecutrix on the floor, stripped himself and the prosecutrix and committed rape with her. She had resisted such act, however, appellant threatened her and said not to disclose the incident to anybody otherwise he would kill her. The prosecutrix told the incident to her mother on 8.8.09 in the night. Thereafter, report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Maharajpur. The prosecutrix was medically examined. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed. Case was committed to the Sessions Court. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated. After trial, the trial court found the charges proved against the appellant and awarded the sentence as mentioned above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the trial court has erred in law in appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix. There are major contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no corroboration from medical evidence. Mother of the prosecutrix also does not support the version of the prosecutrix. There is delay in lodging the FIR. He further contended that appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and the trial court has not considered the evidence produced by the appellant, hence the judgment passed by the trial court is against the law. He placed reliance on the judgments of Rajoo & others Vs. State of M.P. - : AIR 2009 SC 858, Krishna Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana - : (2011)7 SCC 130, Laliram and another Vs. State of M.P. - : (2008)10 SCC -69, Radhu Vs. State of M.P - : 2007(4) Crimes 1(SC) and Kanchhedi Vs. State of M.P - (1990) 1 MPWN -Note - 111.