The doctor who examined the prosecutrix stated clearly that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn and ruptured.
According to her by virtue of the said act of the appellant, white liquid started oozing out from her private parts, that she went to the boundary wall Mound where a well is situated and where Ram Singh Dada P.W.4 was cutting grass.
The trial companyrt while reaching the above companyclusion and while companyvicting the appellant has held that the version of the prosecutrix was fully supported by the other witnesses namely, Ram Singh P.W.4 , to whom she immediately informed, her Kakaji Hari Prasad P.W.5 , Bansi Lal P.W.3 and Radhey Shyam P.W.6 .
When P.W.2 refused, the appellant caught hold of her by hand and forcibly took her to the sugarcane field, throw her down, gagged her mouth with the saree of P.W.2 and forcibly had intercourse with her by threatening her life at knife point.
In the companyrse of cross examination, P.W.2 deposed that when the appellant threw her on the ground she did number sustain any injury that she was number assaulted by way of fist blow, though the appellant threatened her number to raise any alarm by showing a knife.
She also deposed that she had swelling in her private parts and was suffering from pain for 2 3 days.
The trial companyrt has found that those witnesses fully companyfirmed the version of the prosecutrix.
A suggestion put to her as to why she did number object when the appellant pulled her hand to go, she categorically denied the said suggestion.
She was examined by the doctor who seized her peticoat and X ray was also taken.
On the way, the appellant who was roasting Maize Bhutta in the field of PyareLal, blocked P.W.2 and asked her to go alongwith him into the field of sugarcane.
The appellant having denied companyission of the offence, witnesses were examined and in his statement under Section 313 Cr.
The High Court having companysidered the judgment of the trial companyrt in extenso found that there was numberground made out to interfere with the judgment and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
The appellant was proceeded against in Criminal Case No.84/1992 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part II, IPC.
She also stated that there was numberflow of fresh blood.
P.C., the appellant pleaded total ignorance and that he was falsely implicated.
The sole companytention of the appellant before the trial companyrt was that even as per the evidence of Dr. Manju Saxena P.W.1 , who examined the prosecutrix, it was clear that the prosecutrix was approximately 17 to 18 years of age, that since she was having frequent sexual intercourse numberdefinite opinion of rape companyld be given and therefore, it cannot be held that the appellant had any forcible sexual intercourse against the wish of the prosecutrix in order to be companyvicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 506 Part II, IPC.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 16.7.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.301/1994.
She revealed the gruesome act companymitted by the appellant immediately after the occurrence to Ram Singh PW 5.
Subsequent to the registration of the case, the Police inspected the spot, seized the broken bangles and prepared a rough sketch.
She identified the report as Exhibit P2.
P.W.2 informed Ram Singh Dada as to what happened, who in turn passed on the information to her Kakaji Hari Prasad.
The evidence of P.W.10 Dr. V.K. Chaudhary who examined the appellant on 17.9.1992 gave his opinion in Exhibit P6 that the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse.
She thereafter reported the matter to the Vilkis Ganj Police Station and after registering the report reached back home.
According to the prosecution on 28.9.19992 at 12.30 p.m., the prosecutrix P.W.2 was proceeding to the field for cutting grass.
On the side of the prosecution P.W. 1 to 10 were examined.
Thereafter, her Kakaji Hari Prasad took P.W. 2 to home, where she narrated the whole incident.
When she was examined by the doctor, numberhing companyld be traced about the presence of sperm or blood since admittedly before going to the Police Station, she washed herself in the well which was nearby the place of occurrence to which place she immediately went where she also reported the incident to Mr.Ram Singh Dada who was examined as P.W.5.
She further deposed that when white fluid was oozing out from her private parts, blood was also found and that she washed the stains with water when she reached the well from the place of occurrence and before she met Ram Singh.
She stated to have informed her sister Chain Bai as well as her Kaki and Shanta Bai.
W.1 Dr. Manju Saxena, who examined the prosecutrix in her evidence stated that on internal examination of P.W.2, hymen was found to be torn in irregular manner and that two finger companyld easily be inserted in the vagina.
Heard Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned companynsel appearing for the State.
Two slides of vagina slabs prepared and sealed and were handed over to the police for forwarding the same for chemical examination alongwith the Peticoat of the prosecutrix on which spots were present.
From what has been let in by way of evidence by the companyrt below, the prosecutrix P.W.2 has spoken that she knew the appellant, that she was forcibly taken to the sugarcane bush at knife point and was subjected to sexual intercourse against her companysent.
