9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... next day, the family set out in search of her but could not find her. They however ascertained that the appellants herein, Jai Krishna Mandal and Munna Das were also missing from the village from 7th February 1999. The two appellants however returned to the village on the 11th February, 1999 and were duly interrogated by the villagers on which they admitted that they had kidnapped the prosecutrix and kept her in village Maheshadih. A case under Sections 366 and 376 was accordingly registered against the two. The prosecutrix also returned to the village on 16th February, 1999 and her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she stated that she had gone out of the house at 10.00 a.m. to graze her goat and as she came o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man with two children and a third pregnancy was about 1-1/2 to 2 months on, and as such it was obvious that she was habituated to regular intercourse. The finding of the Trial Court was affirmed in appeal by the High Court. Mr. M.P. Jha, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised only one argument during the course of the hearing. He has pointed out that the only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed. He has pointed out that some corroboration for her story could perhaps to be found if the medical evidence was categorical about the commission of rape. He has also submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that there was no evidence of rape, no injury on her person and that she was a `multi persons lady'. We are unable to comprehend what exactly this word means and in the context that it had been used, we assume that she was a lady having regular sexual intercourse with several persons. We also find that as per the prosecution story the appellants were missing from the village on the date that the prosecutrix also disappeared that is 7th February 1999 and though they came back to the village on 11th February, 1999, the FIR had been recorded after three days although they had been interrogated by the Investigating Officer on 11th February 1999 itself. The very fact that the investigating officer has not been examined also causes pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
