STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BIRAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1996 and S.B.Criminal Jail Appeal No. 51 of 1996. By its impugned judgment and order dated March 31, 1999, the High Court while affirming the conviction of the respondent under Section 450, IPC, acquitted him of the charge under Section 376, IPC. The sentence under Section 450, IPC was reduced to the period already undergone. Earlier the trial court had found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Under Section 450, IPC, the respondent had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix Smt. Geeta Bai (P.W.1) is a widow aged about 35 years. Her husband had died a few years before the date of occurrence leaving behind three children out of whom the eldest being a daughter had also died. The prosecutrix was working as a labourer at a construction site and lived in a house along with her children, mother Smt. Sushila (P.W.2) and brother Mangi Lal (P.W.7). According to the prosecution, on February 2, 1994, the respondent misbehaved with the prosecutrix in a drunken state but on intervention of Ram Kalyan (PW-9), he was prevented from causing any harm to the prosecutrix. On the same night, while the prosecutrix was sleeping in her room along with her four years old child, the respondent entered the room armed with a knife, threatened her, gagged her and thereafter committed rape. After that, he ran away. The prosecutrix raised an alarm attracting to the place of occurrence her mother Smt. Sushila (P.W.2), another lady Gulab Bai (P.W.3) and her brother Mangi Lal (P.W.7). She narrated the incident to her mother Smt. Sushila (P.W.2). She informed her that she had been raped by the respondent. It is the case of the prosecutrix that on the following morning, when she was on her way to the police station to lodge a report, she was intercepted by the respondent who was armed with a gandasi and who threatened her with dire consequences if she lodged a police report. The prosecutrix was scared and did not go to the police station and returned home. After four or five days, it appears that she went to the Superintendent of Police with a written report but she was directed to lodge the report at the police station Jawar. Accordingly, the police report was lodged and a case was registered under Sections 450 and 376, IPC. After investigation, the respondent was put up for trial before the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Camp at Eklera (Dist. Jhalawar) who held the respondent guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 450, IPC.

(3.) At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of four witnesses to prove the offence under Section 376, IPC, namely, PW-1 (prosecutrix), PW-2 (her mother Smt. Sushila), PW-3 (Gulab Bai) and her younger brother PW-7 (Mangi Lal). So far as the incident which took place earlier that day is concerned, the prosecution also examined Ram Kalyan (PW-9) who fully supported the version deposed to by the prosecutrix. The trial court relying upon the testimony of these witnesses found the respondent guilty of the offence under Sections 376 and 450, IPC. On appeal, the High Court has set aside the conviction of the respondent under Section 376, IPC but upheld his conviction under Section 450, IPC while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.