Bhagwat Das @APPELLANT@Hash State of Madhya Pradesh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-

with default stipulation

Fudu (PW3) is the witness of seizure memo (Ex.P3). He has stated that vide Ex.P3, a petticoat and a lungi of the prosecutrix were seized.",

Bisundas (PW4) is the witness before whom underwear of the Appellant was seized vide Ex.P4. Chhannudas (PW8) has stated that in his presence,",

vide Ex.P3, petticoat of the prosecutrix and vide Ex.P4, underwear of the Appellant were seized.",

Assistant Sub-Inspector H.S. Dwivedi (PW11) is the witness who recorded the FIR (Ex.P1) lodged by the prosecutrix on 3.12.1997. Assistant,

Sub-Inspector V.K. Awasthi (PW10) was the Investigating Officer of the offence in question. He has stated that he investigated into the offence.,

During investigation, he seized petticoat of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P3 and underwear of the Appellant vide Ex.P4. He also recorded statements of",

witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,

On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecutrix (PW1) has stated that the Appellant had committed forcible sexual",

intercourse with her, but from her statement, it is clear that at the time of the alleged incident, Asharam (PW6) had reached at the spot and having",

seen Asharam, the Appellant ran away from there. As stated by the prosecutrix (PW1), at the time of incident, she had suffered an abrasion on her",

hand, but in her medical examination by Dr. Ila Chandel (PW7), no abrasion was found on her body. The prosecutrix has also stated that she had",

assaulted the Appellant with a rope which had inflicted injury on his head, but in medical examination of the Appellant, no injury was found on the body",

of the Appellant. The incident took place on 27.11.1997, but the FIR was lodged on 3.12.1997. Reason of delay in lodging the FIR has been stated that",

the husband of the Prosecutrix returned home on 3.12.1997 and then the prosecutrix lodged the FIR.,

From the statement of the prosecutrix, it is clear that immediately after the incident, she disclosed the incident to her both jethani Amrikabai (PW5)",

and Rukmani (PW13). But, this fact was not disclosed by any of the two jethani (sister-in-law) to their husbands which is not natural. When the",

prosecutrix could tell the incident to her both jethani immediately after the incident, she could also lodge a report immediately after the incident as she",

had already disclosed the fact to her both jethani, but, she did not do so. Asharam (PW6) has also admitted the fact that at the time of incident, when",

he, after having heard voice of a girl, reached to the spot, at that time, having seen him, the Appellant ran away. Asharam also did not disclose the",

incident to anyone. As per the statement of the prosecutrix (PW1), the place of incident was a boundary of the agricultural field which was dry. But,",

Asharam (PW6), Amrikabai (PW5) and Rukmani (PW13) have stated that the said boundary was muddy and as stated by Rukmani, the saree of the",

prosecutrix was also smeared with mud. But, on the petticoat of the prosecutrix, no mud was found.",

From the above, it is clear that the FIR was lodged belatedly. Delay in lodging of the FIR has not been properly explained by the prosecution.",

From the evidence on record, it is clear that any such incident had taken place is doubtful. It seems that either such incident had not taken place or if",

such incident had taken place, the prosecutrix was a consenting party and on Asharam (PW6) seeing the prosecutrix in a compromising position with",

the Appellant, the report (Ex.P1) was made. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The",

Appellant is, therefore, entitled to get acquittal.",

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge",

framed against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.,

It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months in terms of the provisions contained in,

Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,