AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 342 Of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 1
year and fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
Under Section 506 Of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 2
years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation
Under Section 376(1)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 7
years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with
default stipulation
prosecutrix she found that there was an abrasion of ½ inch over her right cheek. 5-6 minor abrasions were present in the inner side of her thighs.,
Redness was present over her private part. Her hymen was ruptured. Margin was irregular. Redness was present in the margin also and the,
prosecutrix was complaining on touching there.,
Arjun Kumar Sahu (PW3) is Patwari. He prepared spot-map (Ex.P5). M.R. Jaiswal (PW4) had proved the entries of Dakhil- Kharij register,
regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix. Dr. F.R. Nirala (PW9) examined Appellant Dayaram. His report is Ex.P10. According to him, Appellant",
Dayaram was capable to perform sexual intercourse.,
Sub-Inspector R.K. Lalwani (PW12) and Assistant Sub-Inspector B.L. Sahu (PW13) are the witnesses who investigated into the offence in,
question.,
On a minute examination of the evidence available on record, it is established that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix had visited the house of",
Appellant Dayaram. As stated by the prosecutrix, earlier Appellants Horilal and Kunjram had come to her house and at their instance she had gone to",
the house of Appellant Dayaram to meet her friend Sunita. Since Sunita was her friend, her visit to the house of Sunita was natural. Apart from the",
fact that the prosecutrix used to go along with Appellant Dayaram for studying, there is no evidence on record that there was any relationship",
between them. Therefore, the argument advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellants regarding consent of the prosecutrix is not sustainable.",
Immediately after the incident, during medical examination of the prosecutrix, Dr. Rajshree Deodhar (PW2) found that there was an abrasion of ½",
inch over her right cheek. 5-6 minor abrasions were present in the inner side of her thighs. Redness was present over her private part. Her hymen,
was ruptured. Margin was irregular. Redness was present in the margin also and the prosecutrix was complaining on touching there. Thus, from the",
medical evidence also, the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated that rape was committed with her by Appellant Dayaram. As stated by the",
prosecutrix, at the time of commission of rape by Appellant Dayaram, Appellants Horilal and Kunjram had caught her hands and gagged her mother.",
The Appellants had also closed the door of the house from inside. Though as admitted by the prosecutrix, there was some dispute between Appellant",
Horilal and the family members of the prosecutrix, only on this ground she has falsely stated against Appellants Horilal and Kunjram is not acceptable.",
During her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has remained firm on the point that Appellants Horilal and Kunjram were present at the spot and they",
had caught her hands and gagged her mouth and the Appellants had also closed the door of the house from inside. Considering the entire evidence,
available on record, I find that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants. The sentence imposed upon them is also just and proper.",
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.",
Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,