Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On the other hand, learned G.A. for the respondent-State opposes the submissions of appellant's counsel submitting that the offences committed by the appellant/accused are heinous in nature and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted him. He submits that it is well established from the statement of Dr. Sanjana Robinson (PW-9) that forcefully intercourse was done with the prosecutrix. The FSL report also indicates presence of semen in the articles seized from the prosecutrix as well as appellant/accused. The prosecutrix herself given her statement against the appellant/accused. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference.

12. On 05.09.2013, statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the trial Court wherein she stated that on 22.05.2013, the appellant/accused forcefully took her in his motorcycle to Village Laudi, thereafter, by bus, they reached Chhatarpur and after that Haryana where the appellant/accused committed forcefully sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that when she got mobile phone of the accused, she informed her uncle, thereafter, on 29.05.2013, appellant/accused brought her to village Laudi via Chhatarpur, where brother of appellant/accused met and brought them to police station. During the cross- examination, the learned counsel for the defence had asked a question to the prosecutrix as to why she did not raise any alarm while traveling with the appellant/accused and the prosecutrix has explained saying that she was subjected to intimidation by the appellant/accused. She further stated that the appellant/accused locked her in a room when he went outside, due to that reason, she could not inform anybody about her abduction.

13. Therefore, the Prosecurtix is found stable on the point of forcefully sexual intercourse by the appellant/accused.

14. Dr. Sanjana Robinson (PW-9) performed the medical examination of prosecutrix wherein she found that hymen of prosecutrix was teared and blood was oozing from her private part. She opined that forcefully sexual intercourse was done with the prosecutrix. The articles seized from the possession of the prosecutrix and appellant/accused were also sent for Forensic Examination. On perusal of the FSL report i.e. Ex.P/16, semen was found in the slide and undergarments of the prosecutrix as well as appellant/accused, therefore, the FSL report also indicates about performing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by the appellant/accused.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the ground that the prosecutrix, being major, was a consenting party and she willfully accompanied the appellant and therefore, no offence under Sections 366 as well as 376 of IPC are made out against him.

16. As discussed above, in the statement of prosecutrix either recorded before the trial Court or by the investigating officer, she is found stable on the point that she was subjected to forceful intercourse by the appellant, however, the conduct of prosecutrix while traveling with the appellant, prima facie, indicates her consenting behaviour towards the appellant but in her cross-examination she stated that she was intimidated and confined by the appellant/accused.