RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant having been convicted of an offence punishable under section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200.00- in default of payment of fine to a further R.I. by judgment dated 26th June, 1982, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1982 has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) challenging his aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) The appellant is alleged to have forcibly committed sexual intercourse with Premwatibai, a girl about 16 years of age, on 13/11/1981 against her will. It was alleged that about 10-12 days prior to the date of incident the prosecutrix was working for Fakir Chand, the father of the appellant and sowing seeds in his agricultural field. On the date of incident the appellant took the prosecutrix to a field for carrying on sowing operations. On the date of incident the prosecutrix was alone and therefore the appellant attempted sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix was forcibly, thrown on the ground and sexually raped. She narrated the incident to her younger sister Giarsibai (P.W. 6) and went back home with her where she informed her mother and grandmother. Father Gendalal (P.W. 4) was also informed about the incident in the evening when he came back home. Thereafter, they started to lodge the report to Police Station, Lakhanwada situated at a distance of 12 kilometers from the village. The report was lodged at 6-30 a.m. on 14/11/1981. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to Dr. (Mrs.) Jam (P.W. 2) who found signs of sexual intercourse, and gave her report, Ex. P-4. Thereafter the appellant was put on trial, as aforesaid.

(3.) During the trial the appellant admitted that the prosecutrix had gone to do sowing operations in his field where she and appellant were alone. He, however, denied having committed any sexual intercourse with her. According to him, Premwatibai bad suffered injury because of a fall on a piece of wood and he was falsely implicated. Learned Judge relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix and medical evidence of Dr. (Mrs) Jam held that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and by using force against her. Evidence of Gendalal (P.W. 4) and Giarsibai (P.W. 6) was held to provide sufficient corroboration. The defence was found to be unbelievable. That is how, the appellant remains convicted and sentenced.