LAWS(MPH)-1988-1-18

SURECHAND Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On January 08, 1988
SURECHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Surechand has preferred this appeal against the judgment and finding dated 13/10/2003 of the Court of Shri B.P. Goraha, 1st Additional, Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in S.T. No. 47/ 83, convicting the appellant under section 376 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo five years RI.

(2.) P.W. 1 Hemi Bai is wife of P.W. 2 Lalchand. They reside in village Harnakhedi, which is about 24 kms. from P.S. Umreth (Distt. Chhiodwara). The appellant Surechand is nephew of the couple, being son of the brother of P.W. 2 Lalchand. At about 8 a.m. on 16/12/1982, P.W. 1 Hemibai (prosecutrix) was going with a bundle of corn to get it grined at the nearby village Badiwada. It is alleged that, while she was all alone at a place near the river, the appellant came from behind. He caught hold of her she was felled down and thereafter, raped. She raised a hue and cry but the accused gagged her mouth. After the sexual act, the accused fled away towards the field of D.W. 1 Bhagchand with whom, at the relevant time, he was employed as a labourer. The prosecutrix went to the field of Bhagchand, which is undisputedly adjacent to her own field. She disclosed to D.W. 1 Bhagchand that she has been molested by Surechand, Afterwards, her husband P.W. 2 Lalchand wanted to assault the appellant, but Bhagchand pleaded to spare him. The village Kotwar P.W. 3 Qudia, was not available in the village. Hence, though the Incident occurred on Thursday the 16th December, 1982, the report (Ex. p. 1), by the prosecutrix, was lodged on Saturday, the 18th December 1982. The prosecutrixT was sent for medical examination, and she was examined by P.W. 10 Dr. (Mrs.) Pandey. No external-injury was found. According to the lady doctor, there was pregnancy of 30 weeks, and since she was habituated to sexual act, the lady doctor was unable to give any definite opinion about intercourse (medical report Ex, p. 15). Similarly the appellant was examined by P.W. 5 Dr. Thakur, but no injury on the penis or other part of the body was found (medical report Ex. p. 5). The chadi and sari were also seized during investigation. But presence of seminal stains and spermatozoa was not detected. Patwari P.W. 7 Jagablal prepared a map, P.W. 9 Mishra investigated the case and ultimately, the accused was charge-sheeted.

(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 376 I.P.C. The defence case is that or denial. Furthermore, it is stated that the bullocks belonging to D.W. 1 Bhagchand had strayed and damaged the crop of the complainant in the neighbouring field which had resulted if a quarrel with the appellant, who was, allegedly, assaulted by P.W. 2 Lalchand. Thus he has been falsely implicated.