Barati Lal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District

Shahdol in S.T. No.120/2004, thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 1 month.

As per prosecution case, on 24.09.1997, when the prosecutix at about 07:00 a.m. was carrying her pigs to Marghatiya side, at the same place,

appellant Barati Lal was also grazing his buffaloes. He called the prosecutrix. However, as she refused, he forcibly took the prosecutrix and beaten

her and committed an offence of rape against her. After hearing the crying of the prosecutrix, one Lallu @ Pradeep Dhobi came there. However,

the accused/appellant has threatened him and thereafter he ran away. Thereafter, the prosecutrix has come to her house and narrated the incident

to her mother and father. On the basis of her statement, an FIR was lodged against the appellant. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically

examined and after investigation challan has been filed in the trial Court and thereafter the matter was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.

During the pendency of the trial, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix (PW-1), Pradeep Dhobi (PW-2), Kashi Prasad (PW-6), Rachaliya

(PW-5) and Dr. N.P. Dwivedi (PW- 8). The statements made by the prosecutrix were corroborated by these witnesses and on the basis of the

statements of these witnesses, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

After hearing the parties and after perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court and the entire record, the judgment is based on proper

appreciation of over all evidence produced by the prosecution, which in my opinion does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed and the conviction awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld.

However, as during the pendency of the this appeal, the appellant was not enlarged on bail and thus he has already completed the jail sentence

awarded by the trial Court. In such circumstances, I do not find any order to pass regarding the sentence as to be awarded.