Riyaz who was examined as PW 3 however did number support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.
There a man suffering from fever was sleeping and on the appellant suggesting that the victim be allowed to sleep there, said man raised objection.
The instant matter arises out of FIR No.93 of 1997 lodged on 31.07.1997 at about 610 a.m. by PW 2 victim to the effect that in the previous night the appellant herein had companymitted rape on her and following was her version.
In the appeal preferred by the appellant the High Court relied on the testimony of the victim and companyfirming the order of companyviction and sentence it dismissed the appeal.
After due investigation, the appellant was charged for having companymitted offence under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3 2 5 of the SC ST Atrocities Act, 1989.
At Dharamshala the victim told everything to one Riyaz who was like a brother to her.
The victim having refused to go, he caught her hand and forcibly took her to his house.
While granting special leave to appeal the appellant was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 09.09.2013.
442 of 1998 affirming the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1997.
The appellant came back to Dharamshala and suggested that he companyld make arrangements for her in the bus at which time a policeman also came.
In the house the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with her, after which he asked the victim to spend the night at his house.
The victim, an adivasi woman, though married was staying with her parents at Devipada.
She then accompanied him to Dharamshala but since there were numberchildren he took her to the house of another person.
The present appeal arises at the instance of the appellant challenging his companyviction and sentence.
The victim was sent for medical examination and was examined by Dr. Sarojini Ben Patel PW 1 who found numberinjuries on the private or external parts of her body and the doctor companyld number give any opinion about rape.
The Trial Court however acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 3 2 5 of the SC and ST Atrocities Act, 1989.
The appellant having been apprehended was also sent for medical examination and was found to be capable of having sexual intercourse.
In the trial the victim was examined as PW 2 who reiterated her version as stated above.
However she ran away and returned to Dharamshala and slept there.
The appellant came back and finding the victim to have fallen asleep, woke her up and tried to take her to his house.
Next day i.e., on 31.07.1997 she reached the police station and lodged FIR exhibit P 2 as stated above, on the basis of which the investigation was undertaken.
On 30.07.1997 after having visited her brother at Khetalpur, she had returned by bus and alighted at Bajna bus stand at about 1000 P.M. She was sitting near a Ghumti when the appellant approached her and suggested to her to spend the night at Dharamshala with his children.
Thereupon the appellant went to get the keys of his house, during which time she came back to Dharamshala situated at the bus stand.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
