NAGJIBHAI VERSIBHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2003 rendered in Sessions Case No.27 of 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, District Banaskantha at Deesa by which the appellant ('the accused' for short) has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs.10,000/ - i.d., further imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376 IPC and RI for seven years and fine of Rs.2,000/ - i.d., further imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506 (2) IPC. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in nutshell, as disclosed from the FIR and unwrapped during trial, is as under:

(3.) MR . Pushpadatta Vyas, learned advocate for the accused, has contended that defence of the accused is that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by Miss X and her family members because of the previous enmity on account of the breaking of betrothal of Miss X with his maternal cousin and in order to avoid penalty as it was the social custom in their caste, which is wrongly not believed by the trial court. It is also contended by him that Miss X is the niece of the accused, therefore, entire case of the prosecution is got up and the accused has been falsely entrapped in the said case just with a view to take revenge and also to pressurising him so that he can tell his maternal cousin not to insist for penalty. It is also highlighted by him that there was material contradictions and improvements in the version of Miss X as she has improved her oral testimony and stated many things which were not mentioned in the complaint Ex.40. It is also pointed out by him that the oral testimony of the doctor who has examined Miss X does not support the prosecution case about the rape committed by the accused as there was no injury in the vagina nor any semen is seen in her vagina. If we except the version of Miss X, there must be some injury on her person because she was made to lie on the field and if we accept the evidence of the doctor, who is an independent witness, no such injury was found on her person and, therefore, because of this contradiction, the version of Miss X cannot be relied upon. It is also highlighted by him that version of the father of Miss X also suffers from material contradictions and improvements. All the panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. It is also empathetically submitted by him that there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, on this ground also the prosecution version cannot be accepted.