AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,500/-
with default stipulation
FIR (Ex.P3). He seized underwear, blouse and saree of the prosecutrix from her vide Ex.P4. He also seized one chain, one locket and broken pieces",
of bangles from the spot vide Ex.P10. He also recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,
Dr. O.P. Shrivastava (PW6) is the witness who examined both the Appellants on 8.3.1998. He has stated that his reports are Ex.P8A and P9A in,
which he opined that the Appellants were capable to perform sexual intercourse. He has also stated that 1 abrasion was found on the left side of the,
cheek below the eye of Appellant Lalchand and 4 abrasions were also found on his back. He has admitted the fact that he had not mentioned in his,
report about the period of abrasions of Appellant Lalchand, but in his Court statement he has explained that those abrasions were 1-2 days old.",
A minute examination of the above evidence makes it clear that the prosecutrix (PW2) has categorically stated that at the time of incident when,
she was returning from the field, both the Appellants stopped her and thereafter she was dragged to a field of wheat crop and thereafter they",
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one. The prosecutrix has remained firm during her cross-examination. Though no injury was,
found on her back, she has categorically stated that the blouse, saree and underwear, which she had worn at the time of incident, were seized from",
her vide Ex.P4. At the spot, mud covers were lying. Since she had worn saree at the time of incident, if any injury was not suffered by her on her",
back, it is natural. Bhagwatibai (PW4), mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix had returned home weeping and she had immediately",
told her about the incident. Same day, in the late night, i.e., without delay, the FIR (Ex.P3) was lodged by the prosecutrix. There is nothing on record",
to suggest that there was any enmity between the prosecutrix and the Appellants. From the statement of Dr. O.P. Shrivastava (PW6), it is clear that",
at the time of examination, abrasions were found on the cheek and back of Appellant Lalchand, which were suffered by him 1-2 days before the date",
of medical examination. The medical examination of the Appellants was conducted on 8.3.1998 and the incident had taken place on 5.3.1998. In his,
statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Appellant Lalchand has not given any explanation about the abrasions",
suffered by him.,
Thus, it is clear that he would have suffered those abrasions at the time of incident. It was the argument of Learned Counsel appearing for the",
Appellants that as stated by the prosecutrix, first Appellant Lalchand and thereafter Appellant Ramkrishna committed rape with her, but in the FIR, it",
is mentioned that first Appellant Ramkrishna and thereafter Appellant Lalchand committed rape with her. Therefore, the statement of the prosecutrix",
is not reliable. But, I find no substance in this argument because the prosecutrix has remained firm on the point that both the Appellants committed",
forcible sexual intercourse with her. In these circumstances, even if the prosecutrix has stated incorrect sequence of commission of rape with her by",
the Appellants, this will not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. It was also argued that the prosecutrix was a consenting party because",
Ramu (PW3) and Siya had seen her in a compromising position and, therefore, a false report was lodged by her. From the evidence, it is clear that",
there is nothing on record to suggest that with any of the Appellants, the prosecutrix had any previous affair. From the statement of Ramu (PW3), it is",
also clear that he had not seen the prosecutrix with the Appellants in compromising position and from the statement of Bhagwatibai (PW4), who is",
mother of the prosecutrix, it is also clear that the prosecutrix had returned home weeping and she had told her about the incident immediately and the",
report (Ex.P3) was lodged immediately in the night itself. Therefore, the prosecutrix was a consenting party is not established. Thus, the finding of",
conviction arrived at by the Trial Court is in accordance with law. The sentence imposed upon the Appellants is also just and proper and does not,
warrant any interference.,
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence under challenge is affirmed.",
Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,