HARICHARAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Haricharan has knocked the doors of this Court against his conviction and sentence recorded under section 376 and 456 IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Guna sentencing him to a term of 7 years' R.I. and fine Rs. 1,000/ - under section 376 IPC and to a term of one year R.I. and fine Rs. 500/ - under section 456 IPC, vide his judgment dated 4.10.89.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the facts are that in the night of 13/14 July, 1988, the prosecutrix Mangibai (PW 4) was sleeping inside her house. Besides a child of 2 years of age, none else was in the family and the doors were closed. In the meantime, accused Haricharan entered her house and put his hands over her breasts. She woke up, cried, whereupon the accused closed her mouth, unturned her Lehanga and committed rape upon her forcibly. After committing rape, he escaped. While going away, he threatened her that she should not tell to anybody, else she will be killed. After the accused escaped, she started weeping, whereupon her neighbour Rajbai reached there and she narrated the story to her. Her husband had gone to Manpura on tite same day, he returned at about 12. She disclosed the occurrence to her husband. She along with her husband went to Guna for lodging the report. Report Ex. P -3 was lodged on 15.7.88 at 18.30 hours, which was prepared by O.P. Chouhan (PW 6). The case was registered u/s. 376/456 IPC against the accused. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Smt. Sudha Joshi (PW 1). After completing the usual investigation, charge -sheet was submitted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused -appellant contended that the FIR is delayed and that too has not been proved in accordance with law. No independent witness has been examined. The medical report does not corroborate" the statement of the prosecutrix. He also pointed out that at the time of bail application aft affidavit was given by the prosecutrix to the affect that the accused did not commit rape upon her and this fact was admitted by the prosecutrix herself in cross -examination. In this way, there was practically no case against the' accused -appellant. In any case, it was a case of consent, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused committed any sexual intercourse, though this fact has been denied by the prosecutrix by her affidavit filed earlier.