BALKISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 30.7.1986/31.7.1986 vide which the accused appellant was awarded a sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/and in default of further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code, However, the sentences were ordered to nm concurrently.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before this Court i.e. (i) that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which according to the learned counsel, are fatal to the case and entitles the appellant for acquittal, and (ii) that no offence is made out under any of the provisions of the Code for which the appellant has been challenged because the prosecutrix had consented to the intercourse.

(3.) In the present case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove its case. The material witnesses are P.W. 1 Rohtash, husband of the prosecutrix, P. W. 2 Maksudan wife of Rohtash (the prosecutrix) and P.W.3 Dr. Rekha Yadav. After going through the statements of all these witnesses the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any contradictions, much less material contradictions, entitling him for any benefit whatsoever. On the contrary there is a consistent case proved by these witnesses with regard to a forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, against her wish and without her consent. The doctor has, in her statement, deposed that the prosecutrix had suffered injuries. In Ex. P.C., which is the medico-legal report of the prosecutrix, the injuries have been shown however, these have been described as simple. The judgment of the trial court in this regard is fully sustainable.