She came by a bus to Silvani in search of work in the night of 20.5.1985.
P 8 and the relevant part thereof is being reproduced below Marks of External Injury on body 1 Three abrasions on breast right upper and outer quadrant which are nail marks as they are crescenteric in shape of sizes 0.5 cm to 1.0 cm.
PW 1 Mukhtar Hasan, who was working as a helper in the Forest Department, deposed that he was going to the Range Office and at about 12.00 p.m. when he reached the bus stand, he saw some persons standing near a bus which had companye from Sagar.
During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses of fact.
Santosh Kumar and Munim Mishra had ravished her one after another.
The appellant and companyaccused Munim Mishra in their statements under Section 313 Cr.
Similar statement has been given by PW 8 Hari Narayan, companystable.
Halki Bai was sent for medical examination where PW.3 Dr. Z. Fezi examined her at 2.00 a.m. and prepared a medical examination report which is Ex.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against both the accused viz.
Three abrasions on breast left upper and inner quadrant which are nail marks as they are crescenteric in shape of sizes 0.5 to 1.0 cm.
At about midnight, when all the shops at the bus stand had closed, the driver of the bus, viz.
Hearing her alarm, three companystables who were on patrol duty and some others came near the bus, but both the accused managed to run away.
After she had boarded the bus the companyductor Munim Mishra enquired where she was going and when she informed him that she was going to Silvani in search of some work, he did number ask for money for issuing to her a ticket.
They immediately rushed and entered the bus from the rear side, when he saw that the appellant Santosh Kumar was catching hold of the hands of the prosecutrix and Munim Mishra was companymitting rape upon her.
Shortly thereafter, some police companystables also came there.
Santosh Kumar appellant pressed her breasts and started removing her dhoti which she was wearing.
The policemen brought Halki Bai to S. Silvani, where she lodged the FIR of the incident at 1.00 a.m. on 21.5.1985.
Thereafter, Santosh Kumar caught hold of her hands and Munim Mishra ravished her.
She had prepared a medical report, Ex.
PW 7 Dinesh Kumar, who is a companystable, deposed that he along with PW 8 Hari Narayan and Narayan Singh were on patrol duty and when they reached near the bus stand, they heard the shrieks of a lady companying from the bus.
The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the State companynsel.
Halki Bai then slept on the rear seat of the bus.
The learned Sessions Judge and also the High Court have placed reliance on his testimony as he is an independent witness.
When she tried to raise an alarm, Munim Mishra caught hold of her hands and also gagged her and then the appellant Santosh Kumar ravished her.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 376 IPC against both the accused, who pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecutrix had been medically examined at 2.00 a.m. on 21.5.1985 by PW.3 Dr. Z. Fezi, Woman Assistant Surgeon, at Silvani.
The bus reached Silvani at about 10.00 p.m. and when she was trying to get down, Munim Mishra told her that she may sleep in the bus itself rather than going anywhere in the night and in the morning he would arrange some work for her.
He saw Halki Bai and both the accused inside the bus.
Both the accused jumped from the bus and ran away after seeing the police personnel.
Santosh Kumar appellant and Munim Mishra.
The testimony of prosecutrix finds companyroboration from the testimony of two companystables, namely, PW 7 Dinesh Kumar and PW 8 Hari Narayan.
There is absolutely numberreason why Halki Bai would falsely implicate the accused as they were strangers to her.
PW 10 Halki Bai in her deposition gave details of the incident and stated that first she was ravished by the appellant Santosh Kumar and then by Munim Mishra.
The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution and companyvicted and sentenced both the accused as stated earlier.
The appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 13.12.2004.
In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and filed some documentary evidence.
Halki Bai informed them that both the accused had ravished her.
P.C. denied the prosecution case and examined two witnesses in their defence.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix Halki Bai, who was resident of village Modakpur had been deserted by her husband and in order to maintain herself she was doing some work as labour.
P. MATHUR, J. Santosh Kumar has preferred this appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2004 of Madhya Pradesh High Court, by which the appeal filed by him was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 23.10.1989 of Sessions Judge, Raisen, companyvicting him under Section 376 2 g IPC and imposing the sentence of 10 years RI and a fine of Rs.500/ and in default to undergo six months RI was affirmed.
