(1.) -The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction recorded by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (Camp Bemetara), in Sessions Trial No.1 of 1985, decided on 25-11-1985.
(2.) Bhanabai is said to be aged about 35 or 40 years. She was a married lady and had no children though she had four hushands whom she had left about years back. She is a labour and is said to belong to Scheduled Caste. She was living with her brother in village Nawagaon. On 4-10-1984 at about 10.00 a.m. while she was cooking her food the appellant is alleged to have entered her, hut, closed the door and raped her. She lodged a report in police station Saja District Durg. The report was lodged on 6-10.1984 at 4.00 p.m. Investigation started, her Sari was seized: she was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Malti Waghela (P.W. 1); her broken bangles were recovered from her residence; the appellant was arrested and was examined by Dr. Rohitdas Kumar (P.W. 2). After the challan, the appellant was prosecuted for having committed offences punishable under sections 454 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution, in his Judgment, convicted the appellant under both the counts and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment the a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and one yearTs rigorous imprisonment under section 454 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial judge has based the conviction after placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix P.W. 3 Bhanabal and P.W. 5 Dhiraj. Dr. (Smt.) Malti Waghela (P.W. 1) could not discover any injury either on the body or on the vagina of Bhanabai. The Sari, which was sent for chemical examination, was not found to have any signs of spermatozoa. The appellant was found capable of performing sexual intercourse by Dr. Rohitdas Kumar (P.W. 2). Shobhnath Pandey (P.W.6), Head-constable, has proved the first information report (Ex. P-5) an4 the seizure of the sari vide Ex. P-10.