288/94.
PW1 in her statement very categorically made allegation against the present appellant that when she was alone in the agricultural field of the appellant accused, he came and forcefully caught hold of both her hands, and thereafter removed her clothes and companymitted rape.
The Petticoat of the companyplainant was stained with semen of the accused.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhikagaon, against the accused under Section 376 IPC which was registered as Criminal Case No.590/94.
The appellant accused was examined by the doctor who found him capable of performing sexual intercourse.
The finding on this aspect of the High Court in the impugned judgment was that if there was any enmity, the appellant accused companyld number have companye to the house of the prosecutrix for inviting her to work in his agricultural field.
The companyplainant and the accused were medically examined by Smt.
After companysidering the evidence adduced by the parties, the High Court was of the view that it is well settled that the woman who is a victim of sexual assault is number an accomplice to the crime.
The statement of the prosecutrix was reliable.
The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a companyviction.
Complainant cried but numberody was nearby.
Vandana Sarkanungo PW3 did number find any injury on the internal and external part of the prosecutrix PW1 and opined that prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse.
Vandana Sarkanungo PW3 and gave a report.
The prosecutrix PW1 came home and she narrated the incident to her parents.
On 1.09.1994 accused was arrested vide arrest memo.
Thus, the High Court was of the view that the Trial Court had number companymitted any error in companyvicting the appellant under Section 376 of IPC.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court ignored the companytradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix Smt.
Her mother called her maternal uncles, Shankar Singh PW4 and Pahadsingh PW5 and father of the prosecutrix.
Dr. Smt.
Semen was found in the undergarments of the prosecutrix, from the exhibit.
The findings of the lower Court, as stated in the impugned judgment were that at the time of occurrence the prosecutrix PW 1 was above 16 years of age.
On the same day, an FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix PW1 at Police Station Bhikagaon.
The clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused were sent to the FSL.
When she was plucking Moong Beans at about 12 O clock, accused Ravindra came near her, caught her hand, pushed her down and companymitted sexual intercourse without her companysent.
Prompt FIR was lodged by her and numberfurther companyroboration of her statement was required.
But PW1 and PW2 have number deposed that due to the aforesaid reason there was previous enmity between them.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 12.3.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No.1275 of 1997 whereby the High Court has upheld the sentence awarded to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, in S.T. No.
After companymitting rape the accused fled away from the spot.
In respect of the false implication on the appellant, it has companye on record in the statement of Nand Kishore PW2 , who is father of the prosecutrix, that a sum of Rs.500/ was taken on loan by him from the appellant.
The factual matix of the case is that on 24.8.94, the companyplainant Narmadabai had gone to the field of the accused Ravindra for doing labour work.
