RADHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1989 by the III ASJ, Dhar, in ST No. 262/88 whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 376 of the IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI.

(2.) IT was admitted that the field of the prosecutrix Jasodabai (PW 1) is 3 furlongs away from the well of the appellant. The prosecutrix lodged FIR against the appellant. He was arrested and was got medically examined and his 'Chaddi' and 'Dhoti' were also seized. Prosecution case, in brief was that on 31.5.1988 prosecutrix lasodabai (PW 2), her husband Kanhiyalal (PW 4) her mother -in -law Dhapubai (PW 3) and her nephew Gordhanlal and her son aged about 7 -8 years had gone to their field. At about 5 p.m. children felt thirsty, therefore, Dhapubai (PW 3) sent the prosecutrix to fetch water from the well of the appellant. She pulled water and filled her pot and when she was going to lift the pot, the appellant caught her hands and dragged her into his lemon garden and fell her down, raised her 'Ghaghra' untied his 'Dhoti' and inserted his male organ into her vagina al)d committed rape on her. She raised cry which was heard by Leelabai, wife of the appellant and Haryan, his servant, but they did not come to her rescue. When the appellant released her, she took her pot and went weepingly to her field and narrated the incident to her husband Kanhiyalal. They immediately came to their house. They could not manage for money, therefore, on the next day Kanhiyalal and the prosecutrix alongwith Shankerlal went to P.S. Badnawar and lodged FIR, Ex. P -3, which was recorded by Babulal Sisodiya (PW 5), SHO P.S. Badnawar. He immediately sent Jasodabai to Primary Health Centre Badnawar where Dr. Smt. Lata Chouhan (PW I) examined her and she did not found any injury on the body of the prosecutrix except one thorn injury on her right index finger. Dr. Chouhan prepared slides of her vaginal smear and also took her 'Ghaghra' and sent it to the Police Station. The Investigating Officer S.K. Mishra (PW 6) visited the spot and prepared spot map. Ex. P -4. On 2.6.1988 the appellant was arrested and was got medically examined. His 'Chaddi' and 'Dhoti were seized and all these articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL Sagar. The Chemical Examiner vide his report, Ex. P -6, opined that 'Chaddi' (underwear) and slides prepared from vaginal smear of the prosecutrix contained semen stains. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned Trial Judge after appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.