TULARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 15. 07. 1994 passed by II Additional sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 30/91, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 342 and 392 of i. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-in default s. I. for 2 months, fine of Rs. 300/-in default S. I. for 1 month and R. I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-in default S. I. for 2 months respectively.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in short is that PW-3 is victim resident of village dani Tola who has lodged the report on 27. 09. 1990 at P. S. Ghughri, district Mandla to the effect that on 25. 09. 1990 at about 2:00 p. m. she has gone to collect the fire woods in the Jamunahi forest. Appellant came from behind, caught hold of her, tied her with a tree by the rope, caused her marpeet, threatened her and in the midnight he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next day at about 8:00 p. m. when the father of the appellant came there to rescue her, appellant also tried to assault him. He snatched her nose ring and ran away towards Bichhiya. She returned to the house and narrated the story to her father, Sarpanch, Kotwar and other persons of the village. On the basis of this report Crime No. 50/90 under sections 342, 376, and 392 was registered. She was sent for medical examination. Dr. Sunita Poddar, WAS, District Mandla medically examined her on 28. 09. 1990. Petticoat of victim, nylon rope, bangles etc were seized. Map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Appellant was arrested. He was also sent for medical examination. His medical examination was done by Dr. Akhilesh narayan Singh who found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. Nose ring was seized from appellant but victim did not identify it. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed n the Court of J. M. F. C. , Mandla who committed the case to the sessions Court fro trial.

(3.) APPELLANT stood charged under Sections 376, 342 and 392 of I. P. C. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses whereas the accused did not examine any witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty and sentenced as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.