AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the order of conviction and sentence dated 07-08-2012, passed by Special Judge
(Atrocities), Chhindwara, in Special Case No.66/2007,whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376(1) of IPC to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to suffer further S.I. for 1 year; under Section 366 of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer further S.I. for 8 months; under Section 344 of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer further S.I. for 4 months and under Section 323 of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
The prosecution case in short is that the appellant alongwith one co-accused Shareef had kidnapped the prosecutrix and thereafter against her
will, she was taken to the house of the appellant, where the prosecutrix was kept for 15 days and was subjected to sexual intercourse against her
will. The prosecutrix was also threatened by the appellant and was not allowed to go to the house. It is stated that when she was got released from
the custody of the appellant she had immediately informed to the parents and his brother-in-law. The report Ex.P-4 was lodged by her, which was
signed.
The prosecutrix herself has been examined as PW-6 and she has made very categorical statement that she was forcibly taken from the house
alongwith the other co-accused. Prosecution witness PW-2 Turchi had also supported the statement of the prosecutrix, as he had seen the
appellant taking the prosecutrix forcibly. Prosecution witness PW-5 Kirti Pawar has also stated that in the morning the accused had come
alongwith the prosecutrix and the appellant had asked for water and had seen the prosecutrix standing there and she was dragged by the appellant.
The prosecutrix was examined by PW-4 Dr.Paramjeet Gongiya. She stated that on medical examination, she found that the prosecutrix was
fully grown up and there was no internal or external injury on the private part of the prosecutrix. She was found to be habitual to the sexual
intercourse. The report is Ex.P-3. Another Dr. Smt. Babita Uikey, Medical Officer has been examined as PW-3, found that the accused was
capable for performing the sexual intercourse. He also found some injuries on the arms and chest. His report is Ex.P-17. The other accused person
was acquitted as the prosecution could not adduce any evidence against him but however, so far the appellant is concerned, the testimony of the
prosecutrix was found to be impeccable. In her cross-examination also, there is nothing to suggest that there was any reason for false implication of
the appellant.
The arguments of the counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix was a consenting party because she had not raised any alarm while she was
being taken to the house of the appellant and further in the medical report of the prosecutrix, no sign of resistance or injury has been found. Further
she has been found to be habitual to the sexual intercourse. I do not mind any merit in the said contention because the prosecutrix and the other
witnesses have said that the prosecutrix was being forcibly taken and she was threatened and terrorized. The prosecutrix is a married woman and
she had got two children and therefore, the medical report of being habitual to intercourse would not help in any manner to the appellant.
In the present case, the FIR was immediately lodged by the prosecutrix after being released from the custody of the appellant. Further from her
statement, there is nothing to disbelieve her testimony as there is no reason to falsely implicate the appellant .
In view of the aforesaid evaluation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, I do not find any merit in the appeal. No interference is
required in the order of conviction and sentence Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.