IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1477 of 1999 Between:-

JAGDISH S/o MANGILAL AGE-25 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE SHERPURA, P.S. SHARANGPUR, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (SHRI RAJESH YADAV APPEARED FOR APPELLANT)

AND THE STATE OF M.P.

THROUGH P.S. SARANGPUR RAJGARH (M.P.)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI S.S.THAKUR DY. G.A. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL/STATE)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEARD ON.22.08.2022 JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 03.11.2022 Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') against the judgment dated 05.11.1999 passed by Special Sessions Judge, District Shajapur in Special. S.T. No.23/1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 07 years R.I. and acquitted the appellant from the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act. 02. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 12.04.1999 at about 11AM, when the prosecutrix was going to deliver food on the field to her daughter and reached near the filed of one Anokhi, the appellant order to stop her and when she was not stopped then he picked her from back side and after dashing her in a culvert (nullah), committed rape upon her against her will. When she tried to call someone, the appellant shut her mouth with a cloth. After committing the offence, the appellant ran away from the spot then she reached to her village after delivering the food and narrated the incident to Radheshyam, Jagdish and Prahalad and lodged the FIR with her husband to the police station Sarangpur.

03. Thereafter, the police sent the prosecutrix for medical examination, prepared the spot map, taken the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused person and after due investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned Court below after considering the statements of the witnesses framed the charges against the appellant under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act.

04. Appellant was charged for offence under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act. He abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime and prays for trial.

05. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses namely prosecutrix (PW-1), Kammod (PW-2), Pavitra Bai (PW-3), Jagdish Prasad (PW- 4),Narendra Singh Chouhan (PW-5), Dr. Chaya Joshi (PW-6), V.K. Jain (PW-7), & K.P. Singh Kushwah (PW-8) were examined. No witness, has been examined by the appellant in support of his defense. 06. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 05.11.1999 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant, as stated above.

07. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the appellant is innocent and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but the learned trial Court has not considered this fact in right aspect and convicted the appellant. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady, hence, prima facie there is no chance of committal of any such type of offence. The learned Court below has not considered the fact that in the FIR the prosecutrix stated that she has been dashed in the nullah (culvert), but in the medical report, no injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that in the medical report, Dr. Chaya Johsi (PW-6) has not given any definite opinion and found the hymen ruptured previously and no injury was found on the private part of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that even after th