SHIV NATH GAYAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the sole appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jashpur passed in Session Case No. 160/95 whereby he has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (In short the 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - on each count, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the each offence.

(2.) STATED briefly, the prosecution case is that in the early hours of the evening on 23.4.95 the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, being told by a young boy named Narayan, proceeded towards a nearby Banyan tree. The accused, who was previously present there, asked the victim to accompany him and took her to village Piral and kept her in the hut belonging to one Neelamuraon for two days and had forcible sexual intercourse with her on three occasions. As allegations proceeded, she, being alone, could not raise alarm nor could see protest. When the situation remained thus, her uncle arrived, a panchayat was convened in the said village and thereafter she was brought back to her house where she narrated the entire incident in great details before her mother. Her uncle lodged an F.I.R., Exhibit P -7, at the police station. After the criminal action was set in motion, the investigating agency sent her and the accused for medical examination, seized their wearing apparels and sent for forensic examination, recorded statements of certain witnesses and after completing other formalities laid chargesheet before the competent court which in turn, committed the matter to the court of session.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charge against the accused the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in toto. P.W.1, is the prosecutrix, P.W. 2, Rohit Kumar, is the father of the victim girl, P.W. 3, Prakashram Yadav, is the informant; P.W. 4, Dulibai, is the mother of P.W. 1; P.W. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are the formal witnesses; P.W. 7, is the Head Master of the School where the victim had prosecuted her studies; P.W. 10, is the investigating officer and P.W. 12, is the doctor who had examined the prosecutrix.