ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 16.7.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.301/1994.

2. According to the prosecution on 28.9.19992 at 12.30 p.m., the prosecutrix P.W.2 was proceeding to the field for cutting grass. On the way, the appellant who was roasting Maize/Bhutta in the field of PyareLal, blocked P.W.2 and asked her to go alongwith him into the field of sugarcane. When P.W.2 refused, the appellant caught hold of her by hand and forcibly took her to the sugarcane field, throw her down, gagged her mouth with the saree of P.W.2 and forcibly had intercourse with her by threatening her life at knife point. According to her by virtue of the said act of the appellant, white liquid started oozing out from her private parts, that she went to the boundary wall (Mound) where a well is situated and where Ram Singh Dada (P.W.4) was cutting grass. P.W.2 informed Ram Singh Dada as to what happened, who in turn passed on the information to her Kakaji Hari Prasad. Thereafter, her Kakaji Hari Prasad took P.W. 2 to home, where she narrated the whole incident. She stated to have informed her sister Chain Bai as well as her Kaki and Shanta Bai. She thereafter reported the matter to the Vilkis Ganj Police Station and after registering the report reached back home. She identified the report as Exhibit P2.

3. Subsequent to the registration of the case, the Police inspected the spot, seized the broken bangles and prepared a rough sketch. She was examined by the doctor who seized her peticoat and X- ray was also taken. The appellant was proceeded against in Criminal Case No.84/1992 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part II, IPC. The appellant having denied comission of the offence, witnesses were examined and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded total ignorance and that he was falsely implicated.

4. On the side of the prosecution P.W. 1 to 10 were examined. P.W.1 Dr. Manju Saxena, who examined the prosecutrix in her evidence stated that on internal examination of P.W.2, hymen was found to be torn in irregular manner and that two finger could easily be inserted in the vagina. She also stated that there was no flow of fresh blood. Two slides of vagina slabs prepared and sealed and were handed over to the police for forwarding the same for chemical examination alongwith the Peticoat of the prosecutrix on which spots were present.

5. In the course of cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that when the appellant threw her on the ground she did not sustain any injury; that she was not assaulted by way of fist blow, though the appellant threatened her not to raise any alarm by showing a knife. She further deposed that when white fluid was oozing out from her private parts, blood was also found and that she washed the stains with water when she reached the well from the place of occurrence and before she met Ram Singh. She also deposed that she had swelling in her private parts and was suffering from pain for 2-3 days. A suggestion put to her as to why she did not object when the appellant pulled her hand to go, she categorically denied the said suggestion.

6. The trial court after detailed analysis of the evidence placed before it held that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix, that since the appellant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her consent, the same would fell within the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and such a gruesome offence was committed under the threat of knife point, the offence of criminal intimidation was also made out falling under Section 506 Part II, IPC.

7. The trial Court after convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences imposed punishment for 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/, in default, sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and imprisonment of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default six mont