JEEVAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction under section 376 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - , in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I for three months passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonkatch District Dewas vide judgment dated 27.11.2007 in S.T. No. 10/2007.

(2.) According to the prosecution case on 06.09.06 between 7.00 and 8.00 PM, the appellant took the prosecutrix (PW - 12), aged 11 years in his house for cooking food, because his wife had gone to her father's house. When prosecutrix did not return back, her father the complainant Manloharlal (PW - 6) reached at the house of the appellant and had suspicion, because the light of the house of the appellant was off. He entered inside the house an switched on to the light and saw that his daughter, the prosecutrix was sitting on the cot (PALANG) and appellant was also sitting by her side. Manoharlal asked the prosecutrix to go to the house and when she got up from the cot, her salwar fell downwards. Manloharlal asked his daughter as to what happened and why the Salwar got untied, the prosecutrix while weeping disclosed that the appellant had untied her salwar and she tried to run away, but the appellant caught hold of her hands, gagged her mouth and also threatened. Thereafter, he lied on her and committed bad act (rape) with her. The complainant caught the appellant and brought out side the house and thereafter, called his nephew Prakash and with his help, tied the appellant by a rope. Villagers, Omprakash Sharma, Sarpanch Mukesh Malviya and watchman Poonamchand were informed about the incident and report Ex.P/ 5 was lodged by him at the Police Station on 06.09.06 at 9.45 PM. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and the same was done by Dr PW - 2 Pushpa Pavaiya who gave*her report Ex.P/2. PW - 1 Dr Atul Paonikar examined the appellant and gave report Ex.P/1. The garments of the prosecutrix and appellant were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but its report had not received till pronouncement of the judgment. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge - sheeted for commission of the offence as already noted herein - above.

(3.) The appellant refuted the charges and his defence was that Manoharlal, father of the prosecutrix used to purchase grocery on credit from his shop and lodged a false report to save himself from payment of money to the appellant. The appellant examined DW - 1 Lakhanlal. Learned trial Court, on conclusion of trial, finding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as indicated herein above. Hence, this appeal.