LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-180

PINTU & ANR Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On August 27, 2018
Pintu And Anr Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by appellants Pintu and Bhura being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 1.1.2000 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, Distt. Guna, in Sessions Trial No.5/1999 convicting both the appellants under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC with sentence of three years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- and five years RI and fine of 1,000/- respectively and also convicting appellant Bhura under Section 376 of IPC with seven years RI and fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in the event of nonpayment of fine, they are directed to suffer three months RI under Section 363, six months RI under Section 366 of IPC and 9 months RI under Section 376 of IPC.

(2.) As per prosecution story, prosecutrix was minor. She was abducted by appellants Pintu and Bhura on 9.1.99 at about 6.30 pm when she had gone to answer call of nature from her house situated at Tekri Mohalla, Chachoda. She was taken to jungle where accused Bhura committed rape on her. When prosecutrix did not return to her home on 9.1.1999, then her mother Tarabai sent her son Sonu to Beenaganj to call his father Dashrath Singh and thereafter they tried to locate the prosecutrix but when she could not be located, then missing person report was recorded at police Station, Chachoda.

(3.) During investigation, police recovered prosecutrix from the house of Bhura and thereafter FIR was registered. Prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and x-ray examination. Seized articles were sent for FSL report to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Gwalior. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chachado, from where matter was committed to the Sessions Court. Appellants abjured their guilt and produced evidence in rebuttal. They denied the allegations made against them in the defence evidence as well as in the statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They submitted that they have been falsely implicated.