RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment in the present appeal, preferred by Ramesh Kumar, would equally govern the disposal of the two connected criminal appeals No. 998 of 1982 and No. 1038 of 1982 preferred by Umesh Kumar and Shriram respectively all of whom, on their conviction under Section 376 IPC, have, each, been sentenced to five years RI.

(2.) Appellant-accused Umesh Kumar is a Constable in the S.A.F. and the other two accused persons Ramesh and Shriram are Homeguards in the Betul District. The prosecutrix Mst. Jamila, who was originally an Adivasi girl and later converted to Islam is a married woman, aged about 18 or 19 years. On 10.3.81, the prosecutrix, boarding the train at Kalyan, de-trained at Itarsi and boarded the passenger bus, for going to village Bhounwra, where her sister resided. By mistake, instead of getting down at Bhounwra, she got down at Shahpur, which has a railway-head Barbatpur. With intent to go to village Bhounwra, which too has a railway station Dhodhramohar, she went to the station and awaiting the arrival of the train, lay down on the platform where many other passengers were also lying down or waiting for the arrival of the trains. The three appellants accused, on their regular beat, came to the station, made certain enquiries from the prosecutrix and then directed her to accompany them to the police station. Instead of taking her to the police station, they took her to Jungle, adjoining Dudadso and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her one after the other. After sometime, police party arrived at the place and the accused persons took to their heals. The prosecutrix lodged the report with the police (Ex. P-i). The appellants-accused were apprehended. The prosecutrix and the appellants-accused were sent for medical examination and so also their clothes. After due investigation, the appellants-accused were put up for trial. The appellants-accused claimed to be falsely implicated but adduced no evidence, in defence. The trial Court, relying on the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, partly corroborated by the medical evidence and partly corroborated by the oral testimonies of the two police constables P.W. 2 Bachchulal and P.W. 3 Balajirao, who had seen these appellants-accused taking away the prosecutrix with them, towards Dudadeo temple and onwards and not to the police station held all the three appellants accused guilty of the offence in question and convicted and sentenced them to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now their respective appeals.

(3.) The respective counsel for the appellants accused have advanced similar arguments and have urged, in the first place, that the prosecutrix is not a truthful witness, inasmuch as, her oral testimony is at variance with her FIR and with the statements of other witnesses; and also inasmuch as, she is not found to be substantially corroborated by other witnesses, more particularly by the medical evidence. Absence of any injuries on her person, is stated to be an indication of the fact that, at worst, the prosecutrix may be a consenting party. The identification proceedings are stated to be no proved; and as such, it is argued that identification of the actual culprit is not free from doubt, since the appellants-accused were not known to the prosecutrix from before.