DHRUVKUMAR NANJIBHAI DAMOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Dhruvkumar Nanjibhai Damor who came to be tried in Sessions Case No. 22/86 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sabarkantha at Himatnagar for the alleged offence punishable under sections 323 354 and 376 of IPC was at the end of the trial by judgment and order dated 19.6.1986 came to be convicted only for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for six months and he was acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 376 of the IPC. 1.1 At this stage it may incidentally be stated that so far as the acquittal under sections 323 and 376 of IPC is concerned no appeal is filed by the State. Of course it is true that when the appeal came up for admission on 22.8.1986 while admitting the appeal this court (Coram: J.P. Desai J.) had issued a notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the sentence imposed by the trial court should not be enhanced.

(2.) According to the prosecution the alleged incident wherein Taraben Sajjanbhai (PW-3 EX-13) was molested and raped look place at 7.00 A.M. on 11.2 at the distance of about 1/2 k.m. from village Bhiloda. It is case of the prosecution that Sajjanbhai Kalabhai (PW-3 EX- 11) who happens to be father of the prosecuterix Taraben is staying at village Bhatera and was serving as a teacher in Vankaner. It is further alleged that Taraben at the relevant time was 19 years old and was studying in F.Y.B. Com. and that her timing for going to the College was from 7.00 A.M. to 1 Noon. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on the aforesaid date time and place when Taraben was proceeding towards the College and was passing from a ravine known as Kharada Vagha the appellant all of a sudden came from behind caught hold of her and dragged her in the said ravine. It is further alleged that thereafter on she raising the shouts the accused pressed her mouth with hand and thereafter after making Taraben to lie down forcibly committed a sexual intercourse. It is further alleged by the prosecution that on hearing the shouts of Taraben her brother Vasant Sajjanbhai (PW-4 EX-14) aged-20 who was following her for going to the tution ran towards the scene of offence and on seeing him the accused ran away. It is further alleged that within a short time one Maganbhai Kalabhai Bareva (PW-5 EX- 15) who happens to be the uncle of the prosecutrix-Taraben appeared on the scene of the offence and thereafter both Maganbhai and Vasant took Taraben to her house and narrated the entire incident to the complainant- Sajjanbhai Kalabhai. It is further alleged that as the reputation of the family was at a stake the complainant did not go immediately to the police station to the a complaint. But thereafter realising the gravity and seriousness of the offence after mustering the courage Sajjanbhai went to Bhiloda Police Station and filed a complaint Ex. 10 at 10.00 a.m. on 12.2.1985 which come to be registered for the offence under section 354 of the IPC. On the basis of the basis of these facts the police filed a chargesheet under section 354 of IPC against the appellant to stand trial before the learned Magistrate. During the course of the trial when the evidence came to be recorded the prosecution witnesses came out with a story of the rape and hence the case was committed to the court of sessions charging the accused also for the alleged offence under section 376 of IPC.

(3.) At trial the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In substance it was his defence that prosecuterix-Tara and he were in love and were on good relations and often meating and that for whatever reasons ultimately he has been falsely implicated in a serious charge of rape.