LAWS(MPH)-1969-8-13

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SURENDRA PRASAD DAVE

Decided On August 02, 1969
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
SURENDRA PRASAD DAVE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by the respondent on Pramila Kumari (P.W. 10) a girl aged about 10 or 11 years on the noon of 28-5-1965, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1965, dated 14-10-1965.

(2.) THE respondent, an artisan employed in the Heavy Electricals Factory at Bhopal, has his house adjoining the house of Manoharlal Bahel (P.W.15), the father of the prosecutrix. It was the prosecution case that at that time the respondent wag alone and the other adult members including some guests were away. In the house, some children were playing. When the children finished their play and departed for their respective homes, the respondent asked Pramila Kumari to go by a particular door. He immediately closed the door, took her on his lap and satisfied his lust by committing rape on her. When she tried to cry, the respondent gagged her mouth. When the respondent saw the private parts of the prosecutrix bleading, he proposed to take her to the house of one Tiwari where he would apply medicines. THE girl, however, refused and extricating herself from the clutches of the respondent, ran to her own house. On reaching her own house, she called out to her mother to open the door and fainted in the door itself thereafter. On regaining consciousness, she narrated the entire incident to her mother Smt. Raj (P.W.7) who sent for the father of the prosecutrix from the office. In the meantime, people of the locality had collected and they had surrounded the house of the respondent. THE crowd gave a beating to the respondent. Manoharlal Bahel (P.W. 15) lodged the first information report, Ex. P-1 after which the investigating machinery started moving. THE respondent was arrested, seizures were made and the parties concerned were sent for medical examination.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the oral evidence, we find it convenient to deal with the medical evidence.