Mohit Ram vs State Of C.G.

Conviction:,Sentences:

Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafte

referred to as the 'IPC')","rRigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of

Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo

simple imprisonment for three months

Under Section 450 of IPC,"rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of

Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo

simple imprisonment for three months.

Both the sentences to run concurrently,

wearing bangle (Ex.-P/4) and letter/post-card (Ex.-P/6). PW-6, Mahalaxmi Kuldeep, who investigated the case, proved this fact from the place of",

incident, he seized the broken bangles. PW-7, Kriparam Sahu â€" Patwari, prepared the spot map Ex.-P/20 and there is no contradiction regarding",

place of occurrence. PW-9, Shyamlal, is a seizure witness of peticoat of prosecutrix (Ex.-P/3). PW-11, Rambagas Sidar â€" Head Constable is a",

formal witness of seizure.,

PW-8, Dr.(Smt.) Bhanu Deshlahra, found, in her report Ex.-P/21, external injury on the person of the prosecutrix. There was bleeding and pain",

present on the left frontal region and abrasion was present on the left forearm of the prosecutrix and hymen was ruptured (old) and sign of habitual,

intercourse. She also examined the peticoat of the prosecutrix and found that white stains and bleeding were present on the many spaces of anterior,

and post portion of the peticoat and advised for chemical examination.,

PW-10, Dr. A.P.S. Dubey, who examined the accused/appellant and he opined that sex organ of the accused are well development and erects on",

stimulation and he can do intercourse. His report also marked as Ex.-P/22.,

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it is clear that on the date of incident, the accused entered into the house of",

prosecutrix saying that one letter has come from Khamariya and that time accused forcefully committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.,

There is no contradiction and omission in the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve and discard the statements,

of the prosecutrix (PW-2), Kalyan Singh (PW-3) and Lekhuram (PW-4). PW-1, PW-5, PW-9 and PW-11 are the seizure witnesses and they proved",

the above seized articles (Ex.-P/1, P/3, P/4, P/6 and P/8) respectively and supported the prosecution case. Dr.(Smt.) Bhanu Deshlahra (PW-8), in her",

report Ex.-P/21, found above external injury on the person of the prosecutrix and also examined the peticoat of the prosecutrix in which stains and",

bleeding were present. Dr. A.P.S. Dubey (PW-10) who examined the accused/appellant and he opined that he was capable to sexual intercourse.,

Both the Doctors (PW-8 and PW-10) have also supported the prosecution case. I have gone through the entire evidence and material available on,

record and come to the conclusion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused under Sections 376 and 450 IPC.,

We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. The appeal has no merits.,

The same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.,

It is stated that the accused/appellant is on bail since 21.2.2002. His bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender and to be taken into,

custody forthwith to serve the remaining part of the sentences awarded to him.,

Records of the trial Court be sent back.,