GOVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment of conviction passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Ratlam in S.T. No. 213/1992 dated 24/7/1993 holding appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a direction to undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

(2.) The case of the prosecution before Trial Court in short was that on 17/5/2002 at about 1.00 pm when prosecutrix PW-1 was alone in her residence, then appellant-accused Goverdhan came there and enquired about her husband. Prosecutrix informed him that her husband has gone out and will be coming back by evening. Thereafter appellant while talking to the prosecutrix entered inside her house wielded a knife from his pocket and threatened complainant-prosecutrix and thereafter committed forcibly sexual intercourse with her, after completing the act he gave one rupee note to the prosecutrix and asked her not to tell anybody about this incident and thereafter left the place. The incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her husband next day evening when he came back, then on third day FIR Ex.P-1 was given in writing to police Alote, on the basis of which offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered at Ex.P-8. The matter was investigated by the police, prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination, appellant was also arrested and was medically examined. Witnesses were interrogated and their statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam conducted the trial before whom appellant pleaded innocence and false implication due to previous enmity with the family of the prosecutrix, however, learned Trial Judge found appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Before learned Trial Court prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, prosecutrix PW-1, was the only material witness regarding the incident. Mangilal PW-2 is the husband of the prosecutrix, Gordhan PW-3 is a witness of spot map Ex.P-2, Jagdeesh PW-4 is a witness of arrest memo Ex.P-3, Dr. Asharani PW-5 examined prosecutrix and gave a negative report. Dr. Anil Panor PW-6 examined the appellant and found him capable of performing sexual act and Veerendra Singh PW-7 is the Investigating Officer.