MIYAN LAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three ap­peals from Jail, the accused-appellants have called the question the defensibility of the judgmentpassed in S.T. No. 231/96 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. The accused-Miyan-lal and Faggu have been found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC') and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison­ment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 363, IPC; for five years under Section 366, IPC; and for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC and to a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. There is a direction for concurrent running of sentences. The accused-appel­lant Pyarelal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 363, IPC and five years for the offence punishable under Sec­tion 366, IPC with a stipulation that both the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26-6-1996 the accused persons caught hold of the prosecutrix and took her to a 'Nala'. On the way Pyarelal left the other accused persons near a well and his participation in the crime erided there. Thereafter the other two accused persons committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. It is alleged that the act was repeated by each of them. After the matter was reported at the Police Station, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366, IPC against the accused-Pyarelal and under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2) (g), IPC against the other two accused. After completing all other formalities, charge-sheet was placed before the competent Court which, in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) IN furtherance of its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in toto. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix, P.W. 2 is Mendhakobai who had accompanied the prosecutrix; P.W. 3 is Laxman Sahu; P.W. 4 is Allobai; P.W. 5 is Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Srivastava who had examined the prosecutrix: P.W. 6 is Anakhlal, P.W. 7 is Sewak; P.Ws. 8,9,10,11,12,13,17 and 18 are the formal witnesses; P.W. 14 is Y.K. Naik who was the Station House Officer of P.S. Umreth on the date of incident; P.W. 15 is Inderwati, the mother of the prosecutrix; P.W. 16 is Khaddi, the father of the prosecutrix; P.W. 17 is Faggulal and P.W. 18 is R.C. Shabir. Apart from examining these witnesses the prosecution also brought number of documents on record.