Mansu vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 08.01.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T. No.127/2004,

thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of

7 years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

In short, the prosecution story is that on 04.11.2003, when the prosecutrix was doing some work in her farm, at that time, accused came there

and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix has narrated the said story to Lachho Bai (PW-3) and the Lachhu Bai has asked the prosecutrix to

meet some Damdi (PW-4). On the date of incident, the husband of the prosecutrix went out side of the village. After two days, he returned to the

house and at that time, the prosecutrix has narrated the entire story to her husband and thereafter went to the police station on 07.11.2003 for

lodging an FIR. Accordingly, the police lodged an FIR against the appellant and after investigation a challan has been filed in the Court and the

case was committed to the trial Court for trial. That during the pendency of the said trial, the prosecution has examined the prosecutrix (PW-1) as

well as Fagu (PW-2), Lachho Bai (PW-3), Damji (PW-4) and Birju (PW-6). They have corroborated the evidence produced by the prosecutrix.

Thus, on the basis of the overall evidence produced on the record, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for committing an offence under

Section 376 (1) of the IPC.

After hearing the parties and after perusal of the order and the entire record, I do not find any reason to interfere into the jail sentence, the

punishment awarded by the trial Court is just and proper, it does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

However, as during the pendency of the said appeal as the appellant has already completed the jail sentence as he was not on bail either during

the trial or during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, no further orders as regards to the jail sentence are required to be passed in this case.