( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 378 of Cr. P. C. has been preferred against the judgment of conviction passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Ratlam in S. T. No. 213/1992 dated 24/7/1993 holding appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a direction to undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution before Trial court in short was that on 17/5/2002 at about 1. 00 pm when prosecutrix PW-1 was alone in her residence, then appellant-accused goverdhan came there and enquired about her husband. Prosecutrix informed him that her husband has gone out and will be coming back by evening. Thereafter appellant while talking to the prosecutrix entered inside her house wielded a knife from his pocket and threatened complainant-prosecutrix and thereafter committed forcibly sexual intercourse with her, after completing the act he gave one rupee note to the prosecutrix and asked her not to tell anybody about this incident and thereafter left the place. The incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her husband next day evening when he came back, then on third day FIR Ex. P-1 was given in writing to police Alote, on the basis of which offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered at ex. P-8. The matter was investigated by the police, prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination, appellant was also arrested and was medically examined. Witnesses were interrogated and their statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. Learned additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam conducted the trial before whom appellant pleaded innocence and false implication due to previous enmity with the family of the prosecutrix, however, learned Trial Judge found appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove.

( 3 ) BEFORE learned Trial Court prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, prosecutrix PW-1, was the only material witness regarding the incident. Mangilal PW-2 is the husband of the prosecutrix, Gordhan pw-3 is a witness of spot map Ex. P-2, jagdeesh PW-4 is a witness of arrest memo ex. P-3, Dr. Asharani PW-5 examined prosecutrix and gave a negative report. Dr. Anil panor PW-6 examined the appellant and found him capable of performing sexual act and Veerendra Singh PW-7 is the Investigating Officer.

( 4 ) PROSECUTRIX PW-1 in her statement before Trial Court deposed that on the date of incident at about 12. 00 noon when she was alone at her home and her husband went out to work as labourer then appellant came there and enquired regarding her husband. When prosecutrix informed him that her husband will come in the evening then appellant entered inside her room pushed her down on the floor and committed sexual intercourse with her. While doing so he first undressed the prosecutrix and thereafter undressed himself and committed sexual intercourse for about half an hour. When prosecutrix tried to scream then appellant shut her mouth by his palm and after completing rape appellant shown her a knife and threatened her not to tell anybody regarding this incident and thereafter left the place of the incident. She has further deposed that in the same day evening her husband came and she narrated the story to her husband and threafter her uncle-in-law got a typed report on which she put her thumb impression and report Ex. P-1 was given by her to the police.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that story narrated by the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and the learned Trial Court totally failed to consider the material contradicti6ns and omissions which have come in the statement of this witness and the FIR lodged by her. He has further stated that the story narrated by the prosecutrix is totally false because admittedly, there was pre-existing enmity between the prosecutrix and the appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document