MAZBOOT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge Chachauda, District Gwalior in Session Partial No. 323/2003 vide judgment Dated 05/ 01/2006 whereby the Appellant. Mazboot Singh has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven years with a fine of Rs. five Hundred.

(2.) The Prosecution has demonstrated before the Trial Court that on Date 15.09.03 at Village Tulsikheda, the Prosecutrix Halki Bai had gone to her fields along with her daughter Savita Bai and when at about 11:00 in the Morning Hours she was removing the grass from her fields, (where crop of Maize was grown) the Accused Mazboot Singh caught hold of her from behind and threw her on the earth, with an intention to forcibly commit intercourse and when her daughter Savita (aged 9 years) made hue and cry, then the Accused ran away from the spot. The Prosecution further demonstrated that the Prosecutrix Halki Bai narrated the entire story to her husband Kailash in the Evening Hours but since it was raining during the entire day, the FIR could only be lodged on the next day i.e. on Date 16.09.03 at 1.1:00 hours. The Stations House Officer Kumbhraj recorded the FIR, at the instance of the Prosecutrix Halkj Bai and registered an offence under Section 376 of IPC against the Accused / Appellant Mazboot Singh and sent the Lady for her Medical Examination where PW-6 Dr. S J. Baig examined her.

(3.) Shri N.D. Singhal, Counsel for the Appellant, submits that there is an un-explained and inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, in as much as, the incident has occured at 11:00 hours on Date 15.09.03, whereas the FIR was lodged at 11:00 hours on the next day i.e. on Date 16.09.03 and there exist contradiction in the reason of delay in lodging the FIR in as much as the FIR, offers an explanation of delay on the strength of falling of rain, whereas the Prosecutrix, her husband and other witnesses denied this story at the time of the recording of their Statements before the Court and had developed a story of Bribe being demanded by the Police Officers, for the purposes of lodging the FIR. Shri Singhal submits that the explanation offered for the delay in Lodging the FIR after 24 hours is not only fatal to Prosecution and un-believable at first blush because the natural 480 APEXI rain do not continue for 24 hours, which could deter a person not to approach the Police Station, which was situated at a short distance of Two Kms. only and no witness has corroborated each other in the Statements about the demand of Bribe. He has made a reference to the Statements of PW-1/Kaiiash, PW-2 Halki Bai to demonstrate that even the husband and wife do not support each other about the story of lodging of delayed FIR.