Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 716 (MP)

Ramesh v. State of M. P.

2004-08-27

S.P.KHARE

body2004
JUDGMENT Appellant Ramesh has been convicted under section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The prosecution case was that on 1.3.1991 at about 5 p.m. Kanchartbai (PW 2) aged about 25 years had gone to the field belonging to Nanuram to pick up ground nuts. At that time her daughter Awantibai (PW 3) felt thirsty and, therefore, Kanchanbai (PW 2) went to a near by well to bring water. While she was returning accused Ramesh caught hold of her, made her lie on the ground and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She shouted and then her daughter came near her. The accused left her and ran away. Shamimlala (PW 4) came there and she narrated the incident to him. She lodged the First Information Report Ex. P-l on 2.3.1991 at 1.30 a.m. at Susner Police Station. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Smt. Shobha Chourasia (PW 7). The Doctor did not find any signs of commission of rape on the prosecutrix. She, however, prepared two slides from her vaginal smear and sealed them. She also sealed her Ghagra and gave these articles to the Constable who brought her for examination. These articles were sent for chemical examination. After further investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence is that he has been falsely implicated. According to him the husband of the prosecutrix had trespassed in his house and caused fire to his field and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial Court believed the testimony of the prosecutrix and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. The learned counsel for both the sides has been heard. The evidence on record has been scanned by this Court. Kanchanbai (PW 2) has deposed that while she was returning from the well the accused caught hold of her, made her to lie on the ground lifted her Ghagra and had forcibly sexual intercourse with her. She shouted and then her daughter Awantibai (PW 2) came there. Accused Ramesh left her and ran away. She has further stated that she had sustained injuries on her back and she had narrated the incident to Shamimlata (PW 4). She shouted and then her daughter Awantibai (PW 2) came there. Accused Ramesh left her and ran away. She has further stated that she had sustained injuries on her back and she had narrated the incident to Shamimlata (PW 4). She went to the Police Station next day and lodged the first information Report Ex. P-l. In cross-examination she has admitted that her husband had once committed trespass in the house of the accused. She has further stated that the accused was charged by her husband for setting fire to her khalihall. She has also stated that once the accused had taken the Jwar crop of her field. In para 7 she has stated that her bangles had broken during the course of the incident and there was bleeding. She has also stated that her clothes were tom and there were nail marks on her breasts. Dr. Smt. Shobha Chourasia (PW 7) has deposed that she had examined the prosecutrix on 4.3.1991 and she did not find any marks of injury on her body. Therefore, the version of the prosecutrix that she had sustained the injuries is not true. The Doctor also did not find any injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix which could corroborate her testimony. The slides and the Ghagra were sent to the Chemical Examiner but there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory on record. There could be corroboration from the report of the Chemical Examiner if any semen or human spermatozoa were found on the slides or on the Ghagra. That evidence is also lacking. Dr. Shamimlala (PW 4) has stated that the prosecutrix disclosed to him that accused Ramesh had threatened her but she did not reveal that she has been ravished by him. This witness have been declared hostile. So there is no corroboration from the evidence of the person to whom the incident is said to have been narrated by the prosecutrix immediately after the incident. Awantibai (PW 3) has deposed that on hearing the cries of her mother she reached near her and she saw accused Ramesh lying on her mother. She has also stated there there were injuries on the body of her mother but that story has been belied by the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix. Awantibai (PW 3) has deposed that on hearing the cries of her mother she reached near her and she saw accused Ramesh lying on her mother. She has also stated there there were injuries on the body of her mother but that story has been belied by the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix. Bheru (PW 1) is the husband of the prosecutrix and the narration of the incident to him was long after it took place. There is delay also in lodging the First Information Report. After considering the entire material on record this Court is of the opinion, that the charge against the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was previous enmity between the husband of the prosecutrix and the accused. That has been admitted by her in cross-examination. Her husband had trespassed into the house of the accused. The absence of corroborative medical evidence renders the testimony of the prosecutrix very weak. In view of the state of evidence on record, it is difficult to hold that the charge against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 376 Indian Penal Code.