RAJU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed by the appellant Raju Rajkumar, is directed against the judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed on 11. 1. 1983 in Sessions Trial No. 98/81, by the learned Sessions Judge, Shehdol, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months under section 354, I. P. C. The appellant was tried under section 376, I. P. C. but the conviction and sentence were recorded as aforesaid.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 18. 8. 1981, at about 8. 00 a. m. the prosecutrix Mst. Chhotibai R W 1 had gone to a rivulet near the township of Rajendragram to take her bath and to fetch water by a pitcher, The appellant was already taking his bath there. Seeing her, the appellant tried to engage her in conversation, but she made no response. He then advanced two notes of Rs. 50/ - each towards her and asked her to keep them. Again, she paid no attention to it and she continued cleaning her pitcher. The appellant put those 2 notes near her and caught her by the back from behind and threw her on the ground and mounted on her. She cried that this boy was molesting her. The appellant gagged her by her Sari. He stripped her naked by removing her Sari and committed sexual intercourse with her. Her Sari was soiled by his semen. She could not offer any resistance as she was weak due to her delivery of 2 months past. Her cries had attracted Sukhlal P. W. 3 to the spot. The appellant, seeing Sukhlal P. W. 3 coming there, fled away towards the hospital. In the meantime, her husband Ram Prasad P. W. 9 had also reached there and she narrated the incident to him. Immediately she went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. at 8. 45 a. m. , vide Ex. P -i.

(3.) THE appellant has denied his guilt. According to him, he had left his clothes and wrist watch on the Zhiria and had gone nearby to answer the call of nature. After a short while when he returned back, he found his wrist watch missing and the prosecutrix was there taking her bath. He had asked her about his missing wrist watch. He had offered her even money in lieu of the watch. When she denied theft. he reported the matter to the police. In these circumstances, he was falsely implicated. He was also severely beaten by the husband of the prosecutrix 3 days after the incident.