VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, having been convicted for offence punishable under S.376, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' R. I. each, by judgment dated 9-4-1982, passed by Shri S.L. Gupta, Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 1981, have preferred this appeal challenging their aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) The appellants were put on trial for having committed sexual intercourse on Smt. Santu against her will on 3-4-1981 at village Shahgarh. It was alleged that on the date of incident, Smt. Santu, had gone to pick up Mahuwa flowers along with her father, uncle and cousin sister. While in the jungle, her father and uncle moved little ahead of them, and she, along with her cousin Munni, were left behind. At about 9.00 a.m. when both these girls were picking up Mahuwa flowers, the two appellants came on the spot. Appellant Billa asked the prosecutrix to permit him to commit sexual intercourse, on which she said that she would report the matter home. On this appellant Billa felled her on the ground and appellant Vinod committed sexual intercourse with her. After Vinod, appellant Billa also did the same. During this period, they put her own Sari in her mouth and, therefore, she could not even shout. Her cousin Munni, who was witnessing the incident, however, shouted, on hearing which Smt. Shyambai came on the spot. On seeing Shyambai coming towards the place of incident the appellants ran away. The two girls reported the matter to Jagannath brother of the prosecutrix. A report of the incident was lodged and prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Broken pieces of bangles were seized from the spot vide Ex. P 4. After investigation the appellants were put on trial as aforesaid.

(3.) The learned Judge, relying on the evidence of Smt. Santu (P.W. 1) and Munnibai (P. W. 2), held that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse. Appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Judge held that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age. The learned Judge however did not agree with the defence version that the rape had been committed with the consent of the prosecutrix. That is how the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.