SUA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Order of Conviction and Sentence dtd. 2/2/1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, by which the Appellant-accused stands convicted and sentenced under Sec. 342 (Wrongful Confinement) for a period of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.200,.00 and in default, 2 months' simple imprisonment; and under Sec. 376 (Rape) for rigorous imprisonment of 5 years, along with a fine of Rs.300,.00 in default thereof, simple imprisonment of 3 months, which stands confirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dtd. 12/7/2024.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant had put forth the arguments with regard to the discrepancies in the prosecution case by asserting that the First Information Report was registered after about 20 hours of the alleged occurrence of the incident. It is further asserted that the brother of the rape victim turned hostile and stated in categorical terms that no incident happened with his sister, rather, a false case was registered against the Appellant under the influence of their mother because of the boundary dispute of the enclosure with his family.

(3.) Contradictions in the statements of the witnesses have also been sought to be pressed into service to assert that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference has also been made to the statement of PW-8, the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the victim on the day following the incident, where it was pointed out that there were no injuries on the external parts of the body. Although the hymen was torn horizontally, there was no fresh bleeding.