ASHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 14.05.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dindori in ST No. 96/2012 whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court finding the appellant guilty, has convicted him under Section 454 of the IPC and sentenced to 3 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-; with default clause. He has further been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,500/- with default clause. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the prosecutrix and the appellant are close relatives as the appellant happens to be the son of elder maternal uncle of the prosecutrix or in other words, the appellant happens to be the maternal cousin brother of the prosecutrix. On the date of the incident i.e. 17.09.2012 when the prosecutrix was alone in her house and was washing the utensils, at that time, the appellant entered into her house, took her out near the fencing and committed rape on her, she also cried for help but to no avail. She immediately went to her maternal grandmother to narrate the incident and thereafter, when her mother and father came, they went to lodge a report under Section 376 and 454of the IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and subsequently the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dindori, who after appreciating the evidence, has convicted the appellant as aforesaid and being aggrieved of the same, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case on account of property dispute with the parents of the prosecutrix, a 16 years old girl. It is further submitted that as per the deposition of P.W.4 Dr. Manglesh Paraste, no injury -either external or internal was found on the person of the prosecutrix and two fingers were inserted with difficulty in her vagina and the doctor has also not opined whether the prosecutrix was subjected to rape It is further submitted that the doctor has not opined if the vagina of the prosecutrix was ruptured or not.