SHYAM RATAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st April, 94, by A.S.J. Shakti Camp Janjgir, (Bilaspur). The appellant was convicted for having committed offence punishable u/S. 376(1), I.P.C. by raping the prosecutrix in her sister's house. He had trespassed into the house with that intention. The incident took place on 29th Nov., 92, in village Akaltara within the area of P. S. Pamgarh, Distt. Bilaspur at about 7 a.m. The appellant was convicted u/S. 450 as well as 376(1), I.P.C. He was sentenced to 5 years' R. I. for the offence u/S. 450, I.P.C. and 7 years' R. I. for offence u/S. 376(1), I.P.C. He was further sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- u/S. 376 (Part-I) and in default of fine, R. I. for one year.

(2.) The prosecution version as it is established was that the prosecutrix those days had come to house of her elder sister in village Kapri Akaltara for helping her in harvesting crop. Vyas Narayan is husband of her sister Kamala. On 29th Nov., 92, Vyas Narayan had gone to the fields for harvesting crops while Kamala went to fetch water at the Hand Driven Pump (Bore Well) nearby where there was some crowd. So she took some time in getting water. As soon as she went out of the house the accused-appellant approached the house where the prosecutrix was staying, caught hold of Nirmala-prosecutrix and felled her down in the 'Parchi' and raped her by use of force gagging her mouth. This resulted in bleeding from her private parts. The accused escaped after his beastly act. Kamla came back with water and Nirmala narrated her woes to her sister, Kamala, in her turn rushed to her husband to apprise him of the incident. Vyas Narayan came to the house and took Nirmala to a Doctor for getting her treatment due to bleeding. The Doctor refused to treat her saying that it was a case of rape and he would not treat without there being a report to Police in the first instance. This is how, Vyas Narayan and Nirmala went to Police Station, Palmgarh and report was lodged there that evening at 7 p.m. on the statement of prosecutrix, where she disclosed of the above facts. This F.I.R. is Ex. P. 9. The Police saw the scene of crime, collected blood-stained clothes, blood stained earth and other sample earth. They took the clothes of the prosecutrix in possession and got her medically examined at Dr. Ku. Rama who found tears and bleeding in her private parts suggesting recent sexual intercourse. There was no other injury, however. She was also got examined by a Radiologist with regard to her bony age by taking X-rays of her bone joints and epiphyses. The Radiologist opined that her age was around 16 years.

(3.) The trial Court based its findings on the evidence of prosecutrix Nirmala as P.W.1, her sister Kamala as P.W. 2 and her brother-in-law Vyas Narayan as P.W.3. Further reliance was placed on the statement of lady Doctor Ku. Rama Verma (P.W. 7). Reliance was also placed on F.I.R.