AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 760 wordsA.K. Awasthy, J.
Appellant accused has filed the appeal u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 25.01.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 314/1990 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa, District West Nimar of his conviction and sentence u/s 376 of the IPC for the RI of 7 years and u/s 323 of the IPC for the RI of 6 months and both the sentences to run concurrently.
The prosecution case is that on 01.09.1990 in the morning at about 7.30 a.m. at village Karanpura when prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW-2), aged about 12 years, was working in her field, the accused reached there and after throwing the prosecutrix on the ground, forcibley committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix and when the prosecutrix cry for the help, she was beaten by the stone by the accused. That on hearing the noise, Raimal (PW-3) reached on the spot and accused ran away. Prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW-2) went to her house and the incident was narrated by her to her parents and FIR (Ex.P/4) was lodged by her on the next day in police station and she was sent for the medical examination.
Dr. Pushpa Gupta (PW-6), Assistant Surgeon in civil Hospital, Khargone had examined the prosecutrix on 03.09.1990 at about 06.00 p.m. and found the abrasion on the chin and also on the upper lip. Dr. Pushpa Gupta (PW-6) has also reported that the vagina was tender and bleeding and her report is Ex.P/5. ASI Ramsingh Thakur (PW-7) after obtaining the school certificate regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix, conducted the usual investigation and charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
The accused has abjured the guilt and be has denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses in his examination u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pleaded false implication due to enmity. No witness was examined in defense.
The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and the learned Trial Court relying on the statement of the prosecutrix has held that the accused is guilty of committing the rape and voluntarily causing hurt and as such he was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
The appellant has assailed the conviction on the ground that the learned Trial Court has erred in believing the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW-2) and as such the appellant should be acquitted.
Prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW-2) has stated that early in the morning at about 07.00 a.m. when she was in her field, the accused threw her on the ground and forcible committed sexual intercourse and the accused beat her by stone when she cried for the help. Sangeeta (PW-2) has further stated that the incident was reported by her to her parents and after lodging the report she was examined by doctor in the hospital. In cross-examination of the prosecutrix, there is not a single contradiction between her statement in the Court and the FIR (Ex.P/4) and or from her earlier statement recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sangeeta (PW-2) or her family member have no reason to concoct the false case against the accused. The FIR (Ex.P/4) was lodged on the next day on 02.09.1990 at about 3.00 p.m. and the proper explanation of the delay in lodging the FIR is provided by the prosecution. The reason for the delay was that it was raining on the day of the incident and the distance of the place of incident from the police station was 9 Kms.
Dr. Pushpa Gupta (PW-6) has stated that on 03.09.1990 at about 06.00 p.m. prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW-2) was examined by her and there was tenderness in her private parts and hyman was damaged and on the touch of the private part, the blood was oozing. Dr. Puspa Gupta (PW-6) has further stated that in her opinion Sangeeta (PW-2) was raped.
The ravished unmarried girl is like an injured witness who is not likely to screen the real offender. It is laid down in the case State of Punjab v/s Gurmit Singh (AIR 1990 SC 1393 = 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] that there is no rule of law that testimony of the victim cannot be acted upon without corroboration and unless there is a compelling reason to disbelieve her, it should be relied upon otherwise it will amounts to adding insult to victim of the rape.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC.
The appeal is without merit and it is hereby dismissed.