RADHESHYAM @ MAMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 03-06-2013, by which the appellant has been convicted by 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore under sections 376, 450 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-, 5 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and two years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation respectively.

(2.) As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix aged about 14 years studying in class 6th was residing with her parents in village Arjun Baroda District Indore. On 23-06-2010 in the morning father and mother of the prosecutrix being labour went for their job, she was alone inside the house and near about 2:00 PM when she was cleaning the utensils, accused/appellant Radheshyam came inside the house silently and closed the door. He took out the knife and threatened the prosecutrix that if she screamed or make any issue, he would kill her. He removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and committed rape on her. He closed her mouth by his hand, therefore, she could not shouted and after committing rape on her, he left the house and thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to veenabai PW/04 and further narrated to her parents in the evening when they returned to home. Thereafter, they lodged FIR which was registered as crime No.202/2010 (Ex P/1). After obtaining consent, she was medically examined vide Ex P/4. Spot map Ex P/4 was prepared, scholar register and mark sheet Ex P/9 and P/10 were recovered. The accused was arrested vide Ex P/6 and submitted memo under section 27 of the evidence act vide Ex P/7. Clothes of the accused as well as prosecutrix were recovered and were sent to FSL, Rau district Indore The police recorded statement of the prosecutrix-Reena Rajore PW-1, Sunita PW-2, Laxminarayan PW-3, Veena PW-4, Rajesh PW-5, Kanta PW-6, Seemabai PW-7 and after completing the investigation, challan was filed under sections 376, 506, 323, 452, 376 (2)(cha), 450 of the IPC and 25 of the Arms Act before the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class Since the offence was triable by Sessions Court, therefore, trial was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judged framed charges under Section 376, 506, 323, 450 of the IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial.

(3.) The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses namely prosecutrix-Reena Rajore PW-1, Sunita PW-2, Laxminarayan PW-3, Veena PW-4, Rajesh PW-5, Kanta PW-6, Seemabai PW-7, Dr A K Verma PW-8, Rakesh Mishra PW-9, Dharmendra Ojha PW-10, Neeraj Sarwan PW-11 and Dr Kalpana Patidar PW-12. The prosecutrix PW-1 who was minor at the time of the incident narrated the entire incident before the learned Trial Court. Mother of the prosecutrix Sunita was examined as PW-2, who stated that when she returned from the job her neighbor Veena PW-4 gave her information about the entire incident. The father of the prosecutrix Laxminarayan was examined as PW-3. Neighbor Veena was examined as PW-4 but she has turned hostile. Seizure witness PW-5 has also turned hostile. The prosecutrix examined Incharge Head Master Kanta Jivne as PW-6, who came with the scholar register and mark sheet and as per the school record the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 04-09-1998. Independent witness Seemabai examined as PW-7 has turned hostile. Dr AK Verma PW-8 who examined the accused found him capable of committing intercourse. PW-9 Rakesh Mishra has also supported the seizure made by the police. Neeraj Sarwan I.O. was examined as PW-11 who conducted the investigation. DR Kalpana Patidar PW-12 examined the prosecutrix and found that the hymen was not torned and advised for sonography. She has also not found any injury on her internal part of the body. The accused has stated that only because of the enmity and his dispute of property with the mother of the prosecutrix, he has been falsely implicated in the case.