DEVSINGH @ UDAYSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 25.01.2012 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, District Khargone in Sessions Trial No. 166/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_77_LAWS(MPH)7_2018_1.html</FRM>

(2.) In short, the prosecution story is that on 11.4.2011 at about 10:00 am 9 years old daughter of the complainant/ Parmilabai had gone to shop for purchasing Sev Parmal (Snacks) when she did not come back then she search her daughter, but she did not find, then Parmilabai lodged a missing report of her minor daughter at Police Chowki- Segaon. On 21.12.2009 at about 19:30 pm, complainant/Parmilabai came to the police chowki, Segaon alongwith her missing daughter, then SHO Abhay Tiwari recovered her. Parmila Bai alleged that Devsingh was taken her daughter to the shop alluring her to bring Sev Parmal (Snacks) then he took her village, Dongargaon where he committed rape upon her, during this prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, however, accused-Devisingh threatened to kill her, so that she could not say anything because of fear. After that he took her to Khargone by bus while coming from Dongargaon and from there he sat her on the bus sailed to Segaon. Then prosecutrix reached her house on 21.12.2009. At that time blood was present on her skirt and underwear. On the basis of information police registered an FIR bearing crime No.236/2009 against the accused- Devisingh under Section 363,376, 506 of I.P.C. Police sent the prosecutrix for medical examination and recorded her statement on 22.12.2009. SHO Abhay Tiwari had visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot map. The accused was arrested on 08.07.2010 and he was also sent for medical examination to community health center, Segaon. Police seized the various article received from the hospital and sent them to the forensic science labortary, Rau. Police also obtained scholar register of Primary School, Segaon regarding the age of the prosecutrix. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

(3.) The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the crime due to previous enmity with the parents of the prosecutrix. However, he has not examined any witness in his defence.