The credibility of the victim's testimony in sexual assault cases and the significance of corroborative evidence were central to the judgment.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Dhoor Singh stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 366, IPC and sentence to R. I. for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default whereof to R. 1. for three months. He has further been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f), IPC and sentenced to R. 1. for ten years with fine of rs. 2000/-, in default whereof to R. I. for one year, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 26-5-2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial no. 128/2000.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 22-6-2000, prosecutrix Dhanno alias dhanwati (PW-4) had gone to forest to collect Gullis. She was accompanied by saraswati alias Ghuttal (PW-3) and Bhuriya bai (PW-2 ). At about 2. 30 p. m. when the three girls were collecting Gullis, appellant dhoor Singh reached there. He was armed with bow and arrows. He caught hold of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix pulled her hands and tried to escape. The other girls accompanying her also tried to escape but the appellant did not allow the prosecutrix to escape and again caught hold her hands. The appellant threatened the prosecutrlx to shoot her. Dhanwati was badly frightened due to threats of the appellants. Appellant took the prosecutrix to a hillock and committed rape on her. After commission of rape, the appellant told the prosecutrix not to disclose anybody about the incident. He also gave her an allurement of giving a watch of rs. 1,000/-, if she will refrain from informing other persons about the incident. Appellant kept the prosecutrlx with him in the forest till It was quite dark. Thereafter, he threatened the prosecutrix that if she will disclose the Incident to anyone, she will be done to death.

( 3 ) SARASWATL Bai (PW-3) Immediately after the incident of kidnapping reached to the house of the prosecutrlx and informed the mother of the prosecutrix regarding the incident. Mother of the prosecutrix rushed to the spot but the prosecutrix and the appellant were not found there. Thereupon, she went to her husband Roop Singh (PW-1) who was working in the forest and informed him of the incident. The parents of the prosecutrix made a thorough search of the prosecutrix in the forest but she could not be traced. Therefore, they went to police station, Noorganj and lodged report, Ex. P-1. They returned back at about 12 O'clock in the night and found the prosecutrlx in their house. Prosecutrix informed her parents about the incident.

( 4 ) IN the next morning the prosecutrix was taken to police station, Noorganj where-from she was sent for medical examination. Dr. Sonali (PW-9) examined the prosecutrix and found her hymen ruptured. She expressed that no definite opinion regarding commission of rape on the prosecutrix can be given. Ex. P-4 is her report. Lady doctor recovered underwear of the prosecutrix and also collected her vaginal smear and prepared two slides of the same. The slides and underwear were handed over to the police constable concerned in a sealed packet.

( 5 ) THE appellant was arrested and he was also sent for medical examination. Dr. S. S. Rajput (PW-8) examined the appellant and found him capable of sexual intercourse. Ex. P-3 is the report of Dr. Rajput.

( 6 ) AFTER investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences.

( 7 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely Implicated by the villagers.

( 8 ) ON the basis of the above prosecution case, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case against the appellant and as such, vide the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, he filed this appeal.

( 10 ) I have heard Shri L. P. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document