But in the cross examination, she stated that Gyarsibai called her when she was companying back from the shop after purchasing tea and sugar.
During the pendency of the appeal Gyarsibai died.
In her oral report of the incident registered as FIR Ex.
In brief the prosecution case is as follows On 28.1.1991 at about 8 p.m., prosecutrix Sumanbai, went to a shop for purchasing some groceries.
Ram Lals wife Gulab Bai, examined as PW 5, was declared hostile and she denied that Mangilal and Sumanbai visited their house and informed them about the incident.
They were also sentenced to six months RI under section 342/34 IPC.
But, Ram Lal was number examined.
Mangilal also said his son in law came and informed him about the incident.
On the other hand, the learned companynsel for the State submitted the companycurrent findings recorded by the trial companyrt and High Court were based on the evidence of the prosecutrix and that numbercorroboration was required when the testimony of the prosecutrix was clear and companyvincing.
Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bhat PW 2 , examined him and opined that Radhu was aged about 19 years and capable of sexual intercourse.
Thereafter, they also accompanied her and her father to the Barud Police Station where her oral report was recorded by the officer in charge of the Police Station PW9 as a First Information Report Ex.
In her cross examination, she stated that she searched for Sumanbai in the village, and that she also asked Gyarsibai about Sumanbai.
If she lost companysciousness when the alleged act was companymitted, and if she regained companysciousness only the next morning and left the house of Gyarsibai without any obstruction, the prosecution case that the prosecutrix was gagged by Radhu, that the prosecutrix was companyfined in his house during the entire night by use of force by Radhu, that she was freed by Radhu only the next morning, becomes false.
When she cried, Radhu gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth.
Sumanbai was sent to Dr. Vandana PW 8 , a lady surgeon in the Main Hospital, Khargone for examination.
These were also recorded in the examination Report Ex.
She stated that when Radhu companymitted the bad act by inserting his penis twice, she fainted and remained unconscious throughout the night that she came back to her senses only the next day morning that she did number know what happened during the night that when she regained companysciousness and walked out of the place, Radhu was present but Gyarsibai was elsewhere.
Eleven witnesses were examined.
The discrepancies in the evidence, absence of companyroboration, the close relationship the prosecutrix described Radhu as her maternal uncle, as Radhus parents were Kaka and Baba of Sumanbais mother and the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, clearly demonstrated that it was a false charge.
During the night, he sexually assaulted her by inserting his penis in her vagina twice.
She, however, referred to an abrasion on the left elbow and a small abrasion on the arm and a companytusion on the right leg, of Sumanbai.
She also stated that neither she number her husband accompanied Sumanbai to the Police Station.
Sumanbais mother Lalita Bai PW4 also stated that on Wednesday her husband took their daughter Sumanbai to Barud Police Station, and that after returning from the Police Station, her husband told her that they had also taken her brother Ram Lal, who resided at Barud, to the Police Station.
His mother Gyarsibai was also arrested.
All sentences were to run companycurrently.
Radhu was charged to stand trial for offences under sections 342/34, 376 and 323 IPC.
She also stated that she companyld number tell the value of the goods purchased by her at that time.
Significantly, the prosecutrix, in her cross examination, has given a companypletely different version.
Therefore the prosecution case that Sumanbai and her father informed Ramlal about the incident on 30.1.1991 appears to be doubtful.
When her father returned on 30.1.1991, she along with her father went from their village Umarkhali to Barud where they met their relative Ram Lal and his wife and Gulabbai PW 5 and she told Ramlal about the incident.
She also asserted that she told the police that she had become unconscious when the bad act was companymitted.
The High Court by judgment dated 12.9.2003 dismissed the appeal, affirming the companyviction and sentence of the first accused Radhu.
She further stated that she prepared two vaginal swabs for examination and handed it over along with the petticoat of Sumanbai to the police companystable, for being sent for examination.
As her father Mangilal PW 7 had gone out of town, her mother sent Dinesh to inform him about the incident.
P5 , she had stated that she went to Gyarsibais house, while on the way to the shop.
Radhu freed her only the next day Tuesday morning.
Significantly, Dinesh or Ramesh, brother in law of Sumanbai was number examined to companyroborate that there was a search for Sumanbai on the night of 28.1.1991 or that he was appraised about the incident by his mother in law on 29.1.1991 and that he went and informed his father in law about the incident.
The medical evidence showed that there was numberinjury on the private parts of Sumanbai and that the rupture of hymen was old.
Thus the two persons other than the parents who were allegedly informed about the incident namely Ramesh on 29.1.1991 and Ramlal on 30.1.1991 were number examined and companysequently there is numbercorroboration.
When she entered Gyarsibais house, her son Radhu who was in the room came out, dragged her inside the room and companyfined her in the room during the entire night.
In her examination in chief, Sumanbai categorically stated that Gyarsibai called her to her house when she was going to the shop of Sony for buying sugar and tea.
However, in his cross examination, he stated that he went to the house of his relative Ramlal at Barud and Ramlal accompanied them to the police station.
Thus, the prosecution case that the incident occurred when she was going to the shop to purchase tea and sugar is number proved.
She also advised x ray to decide her age.
Dr. Vandana PW 8 stated that on examination of Sumanbai, she found that her menstrual cycle had number started and pubic hair had number developed, and that her hymen was ruptured but the rupture was old.
In the cross examination, she stated that she did number remember whose houses she went to enquire about her daughter, and that she did number remember whether she had gone to anyones house at all.
P 1 opining that Sumanbai was aged between 13 to 14 years.
She went back to her house and told her mother Lalithabai PW 4 about the incident.
270 of 1993, affirming the judgment dated 25.5.1993 in Sessions Trial No.127/1991 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, companyvicting and sentencing the accused under sections 376, 323 and 342/34, is under challenge.
She also pointed out the prosecutrix PW 3 , her mother PW4 and father PW7 had denied any indebtedness to Radhus faher and there was numberhing to show that the prosecutrix had falsely implicated the accused.
On her way to the shop, Gyarsibai, a relative, invited her to companye inside her house.
Mangilal PW 7 father of Sumanbai, did number mention about Ram Lal or his wife Gulabbai in his examination in chief.
Lalithabai further stated that she told her son in law Ramesh about the incident and asked him to go to Chacharia to inform her husband about the incident and to bring him back.
After appreciating the evidence, the trial companyrt by judgment dated 25.5.1993 found the accused 1 and 2 guilty and sentenced them to seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs.500 and in default to a further period of six months RI under, section 376 and 376/109 IPC respectively.
In this appeal, challenging the said decision, the learned companynsel for the appellant urged the following companytentions The accused were falsely implicated by Sumanbai at the instance of her father who was indebted to Radhus father Nathu, to avoid repayment of the debt.
The Investigating Officer PW 9 took up investigation and prepared a site plan P 10.
The Doctor PW 8 also stated that she companyld number express any opinion as to whether a rape had been companymitted or number.
Radhu was arrested on 19.2.1991 and sent to Khargone Hospital for medical examination.
Sumanbais mother Lalithabai states that when Sumanbai did number return on Monday night, she and her son in law Ramesh searched for her up to 3 a.m. on Tuesday morning.
On 1.2.1991 an x ray was taken by Dr. Khan PW 1 who gave a report Ex.
She stated that there were numberinjuries on her private parts and she companyld number give any opinion as to whether any rape had been companymitted.
Sumanbai stated that the incident took place on Monday night, that she returned on Tuesday morning and her father returned on Wednesday, that she and her father went to the house of Gulabbai and Ram Lal at Barud and she narrated the incident to Ramlal, that Ramlal also accompanied them to the Barud Police Station.
Feeling aggrieved the two accused filed an appeal before the High Court.
She examined her and recorded her findings as per Ex.
RAVEENDRAN, J. In this appeal by special leave by the accused, the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 12.9.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.
Sumanbai stated that her brother in law was sent to bring back her father that her brother in laws name is Ramesh but the SHO wrongly wrote his name as Dinesh in the FIR.
His mother was charged under section 342/34 and 376/34 IPC.
