LAWS(MPH)-2009-11-76

RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On November 23, 2009
RANDHIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging his conviction under sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.11.1993, prosecutrix - PW/3 was sleeping in her house alongwith her children. At about 1.30 in the night intervening 27/28.11.1993, appellant entered the house forcibly, took away the prosecutrix to a place near the well, about 10-15 steps away from her house, committed rape on her and ran away. Prosecutrix is alleged to have informed her landlord and neighbour Ram Daroga - PW/4, thereafter she went to the Police Station and lodged a report on the next day, in the morning itself. On the basis of the aforesaid, investigation was conducted and after prosecution appellant is convicted as indicated hereinabove and, therefore, the appeal.

(3.) Shri Jagat Sher Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the prosecutrix is a married woman and at the relevant time when the offence is said to have been committed, she was about 23 years of age and it is a case where the prosecutrix has consented to the act and when her son, 10 year old Kaptan Singh - PW/6, saw the act between the prosecutrix and the appellant, she has falsely implicated the appellant. Taking me through the statement of the prosecutrix - PW/3, the statement of the doctor Dr. Sadhana Mishra - PW/2, who had examined the prosecutrix, and the statement of Kaptan Singh - PW/6, the 10 year old son of the prosecutrix, learned counsel emphasized that it is a case where consent of the prosecutrix to the act in question is established and, therefore, in convicting the appellant, learned Court below has committed error, which warrants interference.