BHUWANI RAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal Nos.965/2008, 976/2008 and 977/2008 as in all the 3 appeals judgment under challenge is dated 12-8-2008 passed in IASJ, Neemuch in S.T. No. 3/2008 whereby the appellant in all the appeals were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC for a period of 10 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 342 of IPC for a period of one year imprisonment and under Section 506-II of IPC for a period of one year imprisonment.

(2.) IN short case of the prosecution was that on 21-10-2007 prosecutrix/Chandrakalabai who was aged 15 years went to see Dashehara Fair where she lost her family members. Further case of the prosecution was that thereafter prosecutrix met with the appellants Jeetmal and Rameshwar and upon their advise she travelled with them on a motor-bike. It was alleged that appellant Jeetmal and Rameshwar look the prosecutrix in a house known as Magazine (a place for storage of Arms and Ammunitions) situated in the remote forest where appellant Rameshwar and Jeetmal raped her one after another and kept her locked in the said house. It was alleged that on the second day appellants came there and again raped her and left the place after locking it from the out side. It was alleged that on the third day appellant Kamlesh and Porulal also came there and raped the prosecutrix and also threatened her for dare consequences. It was alleged that on fourth day again appellant Jeetmal and Rameshwar came there and raped the prosecutrix. It was alleged that on fifth day appellant in all the appeals came there and forgotten to lock the window of house, therefore, the prosecutrix after opening the doors ran away and after coming on the road got the bus and came to the police station. Upon the complaint filed by the prosecutrix and after investigation the appellants were prosecuted. After framing of charge and recording of evidence appellants were convicted against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) SMT.Anjali Jamkhedkar, learned Counsel for the respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of evidence on record, appellants were convicted which requires no interference. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed.