AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.09.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 86/2012, whereby appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.for five years and fine of Rs.500/-,and R.I.for seven years and fine of Rs.500/-,with default stipulations.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.5.2012 at around 4 pm while the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house, the accused-appellant who is the son of the real sister of the prosecutrix entered her house and committed rape on her against her wishes. It is stated that at the time of incident, husband of the prosecutrix had gone out to the forest to graze the cattle and her two daughters had gone to attend a wedding nearby.
According to the prosecution, the incident was witnessed by Bundobai (PW.2) and Anil Kumar (PW.3), who came running to the spot on hearing the hue and cry raised by the prosecutrix and removed the appellant from over the body of the prosecutrix.
The report (Ex.P/1)of the incident was lodged on 7.5.2012 at around 3 pm by the prosecutrix herself who came to the police station along with her husband and Kotwar Nathuram. On the basis of aforesaid report, the criminal law was set in motion. The spot map was prepared and broken pieces of bangles were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/5.The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to District Hospital-Seoni where she was examined by Dr.Rajeshwari Kushram (PW.6) who found multiple abrasions on her back side.
After completion of investigation, the accused was put on trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses and filed various documentary evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.was recorded.
The defence examined one witness, namely, Sawanlal Gond (DW.1) in its support.
The trial Court, believing the testimony of prosecutrix (PW.1), Bundobai (PW.2) and Anil Kumar (PW.3) and further relying on the medical evidence, found the appellant guilty of committing the offence under Section 450 and 376 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as amicus curiae submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated as the doctor has not given any definite opinion about commission of rape and the FIR was lodged on 7.5.2012, i.e. on the next day, whereas her husband, according to prosecutrix, has returned in the evening itself.
Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer
appearing for the respondent/State, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment delivered by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it is observed that the prosecutrix has been very consistent in her statement despite extensive cross-examination. There is no discrepancy in her case diary statement and her statement recorded in the Court. She has stated in clear terms that while she was sleeping alone in the house, the accused who is her nephew, entered her house and committed rape on her against her wishes. She has also stated that hearing her hue and cry for help Bundobai, Budhram and Anil came and on seeing the incident forcefully removed the accused-appellant from over her
body. Bundobai (PW.2) and Anil Kumar (PW.3) have supported and corroborated her statement. Anil Kumar (PW.3) has stated that he removed the accused-appellant from over the body of the prosecutrix, and at that time the accused was not wearing any clothes.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the doctor has not given any definite opinion regarding the rape sans merit. The doctor has clearly stated that the prosecutrix was accustomed to
intercourse which is normal in the present case as she was a married woman. The doctor has found multiple abrasions on the back side of the prosecutrix which according to her could have come during the course of rape.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated on account of the fact that he did not deliver three trolley of soil in the house of prosecutrix and for this reason she was annoyed with him and implicated him falsely is only noted to be rejected. It cannot be believed that the prosecutrix who was a real Masi would falsely implicate her nephew, son of her real sister, in such a case.
It is evident from the record that the incident happened in the evening at around 4 pm on 6.5.2012.
It is but natural for the wife to consult and deliberate with her husband who came back in the evening after grazing his cattle as the accused-appellant was a near relation. It has also come in the evidence that the police station from the place of incident is about 35 kms.away.
Under the circumstances, the FIR lodged on the next day of the incident i.e. on 07.05.2012 cannot be said to be delayed.
In view of the clear, consistent, reliable and unimpeachable statement of prosecutrix which is corroborated by the statements of Bundobai (PW.2) and Anil Kumar (PW.3), and the medical evidence on record, I find no illegality or infirmity in the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court.
In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld.
Appellant is in jail. He shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur for information.