MANGI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED-appellant Mangilal S/o Radhakishan has preferred this appeal challenging the order of his conviction, dated 9th of June, 2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bundi, in Sessions Case No. 85/2001, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 I. P. C. to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand); in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a written- report, Exhibit P-11, was lodged by PW-6 Kalu Lal, the husband of prosecutrix Madi Bai (PW-8) at Police Station Kotwali - Bundi, alleging therein that on 22. 12. 1995, accused Mangilal committed forcible sexual intercourse with his wife. The police registered FIR No. 317/1995 (Exhibit P-12) under Section 376, IPC, and started investigation.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment passed by the trial court and contended that this is a case where the accused was friend of Kalu Lal (PW-6) and both took their meals together and accused being known to PW-6 Kalu Lal, he was allowed to sleep at the residence of Kalu Lal itself and in the night he committed the offence of rape with Madi Bai W/o Kalu Lal. It was contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated with the statement of Kalu Lal (PW-6) and Hukam Chand (PW-2 ). So far as injury-report (Exhibit P-4) is concerned, it is contended that there is an abrasion on the person of the prosecutrix, but the statement of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and it does not require any corroboration by medical evidence particularly when her statement is corroborated by other evidence i. e. the statement of PW-2 and PW-6. It is further contended that PW-6 Kalu Lal and accused both were friends, therefore, there was no question of false implication of the accused in the crime and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix Madi Bai in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, it was contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same be dismissed.