LODHIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone in Sessions Trial No.303/2000, by which, he has been convicted for the offences u/s. 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years and 7 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count respectively with default stipulation.

(2.) As per prosecution story, FIR was lodged by Smt. Nooribai on 10.4.2000 against four unknown persons that they forcibly abducted her daughter aged about 15 years. She was alone in the house and she could not identify them. By that time, she called others, the accused persons took her daughter and fled away. The FIR was registered for the offences u/s. 451, 363, 366 and 34 of the IPC against four unknown persons. The police started investigation and arrested the accused persons viz. Lodhia & others on 10.6.2000 vide Ex. P./8; Munim vide Ex. P/9, Nehru vide P/10. The seized articles viz. Cloth of the prosecutrix were sent for forensic examination to FSL, Rau on 4.7.2000 vide Ex. P/11. As per FSL report (Ex. P/12) given by the FSL, semens were found over the articles A, B and D/1. The police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. After usual investigation, challan was put up before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions against 5 accused persons.

(3.) The prosecution examined Dr. Vandana Sarkanungo as P.W.1, who medically examined the prosecutrix, but did not give any definite opinion about the rape. R.P. Singh was examined as P.W.2, who recovered the prosecutrix from the custody of the present appellant. Dr. D.S. Badole was examined as P.W.3, who examined the appellant and found that he was capable of sexual intercourse. The complainant i.e. mother of the prosecutrix lodged the report stating that four persons forcibly took her daughter from her house. The father of the prosecutrix viz. Mangilal was examined as P.W.5, who was witness of recovery of his daughter from the custody of the appellant. The prosecutrix was examined as P.W.6, who was minor at that point of time. The Court has asked certain questions and the trial Court found her capable of giving answers correctly. Before the Court, the prosecutrix specifically deposed that the appellant who took her and kept her in his house for a period of two months and committed rape several times.