SHAMBHOO SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THE accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-3-1995 passed in S. T. No. 347/93 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for six months.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Prembai (P. W. 1) the daughter-in-law of the appellant and the wife of Balram (P. W. 2) was living in village Kundla with her husband Balram, her mother-in-law Kamiabai (D. W. 1), appellant Madanlal and other members of the family. This house consists of three rooms. In one room Prembai and her husband Bairam used to sleep. On 17/18-6-1993 her husband and other members of the family were sleeping in the court yard and she was sleeping inside the room. The appellant, father-in-law of the prosecutrix came in her room and set on her cot, raised her clothes and inserted his male organ in her vagina, she tried to shout but the appellant closed her mouth and threatened her with life and committed sexual intercourse, with her, against her will and consent. He continuously raped her for three days.

( 3 ) ON the fourth day Kamtabai (P. W. 3), the sister of the prosecutrix, while going to Kanad, in the way, she came to house of Prembai. The prosecutrix told her that her father-in-law was committing sexual intercourse with her. She asked her to inform her father so that, he may take her from there. She had also disclosed this incident to Kamiabai and Prakashbai with whom she worked on the well of Tularam where she had gone to work as a labourer. She also told this incident to her mother-in-law, her grand mother-in-law and her husband but she was not believed. On 22-6-1993 Prembai was taken by her father Siddhu (P. W. 6) to his home at Kanad. She narrated the incident to her mother Seemabai (P. W. 3) and her father Siddhu (P. W. 6 ). On 25-6-1993 Prembai presented her written report Ex. P. 2 to the Station House Officer, P. S. Kanad. Shri Sudhir Sigh Kushwah (P. W. 7) who registered crime No. 52/93 under section 376 of the I. P. C. against the appellant and sent the prosecutrix for medical examination to District Hospital Shajapur were Dr. Smt. Asha Pandi (P. W. 1) examined her on 26-6-1996 vide report Ex. P. 1. No external injury was found on her body. Two slides from vaginal fluids were prepared. Dr. Kapil Sahay (P. W. 3) radiologically examined her for confirmation of age and opined that she was aged about 16-18 years vide report Ex. D. 3. Shri Kushwah prepared site map. EX. P. 6. He seized slides vide seizure memo. Ex. P. 7. The appellant was arrested on 26-6-1993. He was examined by Dr. A. S. Khan (P. W. 4), who opined that the appellant was capable of committing sexual intercourse vide report, EX. P. 2.

( 4 ) AFTER completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. He examined his wife Kamiabai (D. W. 1), his son Balram (D. W. 2) and Dr. AS. Khan (D. W. 3), Mangilal (D. W. 4) and Balram (D. W. 5) in defence. The trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence this appeal.

( 5 ) SHRI Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial Judge committed error in putting reliance on the testimony of Prembai the prosecutrix. The evidence of Sumanbai (P. W. 3), Kamla (P. W. S) and Siddhu (P. W. 6) who are mother, sister and father of the prosecutrix is also not reliable. They have been falsely implicated. Siddhu, the father of the prosecutrix wanted to give Prembai in Natra marriage. To build pressure on the appellant and Balram so that they may not demand compensation, false report was lodged against the appellant. He also submitted that the prosecution did not examine Kamlabai and Prakashbai whom the prosecutrix allegedly narrated the incident on the next day. The statements of the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document