(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Gordhan son of Kishan Lal against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge (II) Narnaul for various offences as follows :
(2.) GIRDHARI Lal (PW2) father of the prosecutrix Savita (PW1) lodged a report at Police Station Nangal Chaudhry are 2 p.m. on October 27, 1982 in which he stated that he had five daughters and three sons out of whom Savita aged 15 years was studying in 8th class and was residing in his house. Dr. Gordhan Rawat (appellant) was running a shop of medicines in their village and the informant and his family used to take medicines from him. At the time of lodging the report the appellant was running a shop in village Nangal Chaudhry and used to come to the village of informant for the supply of medicines. On the night between 26th and 27th October, 1982, the appelant was seen talking with Savita standing in the door of their house. On enquiry by Girdhari Lal the appellant informed him that he had come to supply medicines. Thereafter the appellant went away while Savita went into the house. Savita had gone to sleep along with her mother Lachhmi after taking the meals. At about 2 a.m. Lachhmi told Girdhari Lal that Savita was not lying on her charpoy. The father searched for Savita in the house and found that the door of Baithak was open. When he could not locate her, his apprehension arose that the appellant had kidnapped Savita. Girdhari Lal consequently lodged a report with the police about the disappearance of his daughter specifically indicating a suspicion against the appellant.
(3.) THE primary evidence produced by the prosecution with a view to bring home the charge against the appellant consists of the testimony of Savita (PW1), the prosecutrix and her father Girdhari Lal (PW2). According to the prosecutrix she had known the appellant when the latter was running a clinic in their village. She used to get medicines from him and he also visited their house. She further stated that on October 26, 1982 at 8 or 9 p.m. the appellant came to their house on a motor-cycle and told her that she should accompany him and that he will take her to good cities and show her films. After that the appellant had gone away telling her that he would come back at about 11 or 12 midnight and that she should come out of the house. At agreed time, she came down form the upper storey of the house and went from the outer door. The appellant had also come thereon a motor-cycle. The prosecutrix would have us believe that she refused to sit on the motor-cycle but the appellant forced her to do so. Thereafter he brought her to Nangal Chaudhary to his shop. The appellant kept her inside the shop and closed the shutter and started kissing her. He wanted to have sexual intercourse but she declined to oblige him. The allegation further is that the appellant removed her underwear and pants and also the underwear and salwar of the prosecutrix. Thereafter he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The appellant threatened her that he would kill her if she raised a noise. Thereafter the appellant took her on motor-cycle towards Village Nizampur. They reached a place called Baleshwar temple in Rajasthan. The appellant had tea and bath at that place,. After leaving the temple, his motor-cycle was punctured and was kept in a dhani. Both of them then boarded a bus at 6 p.m. for Nim-ka-thana and thereafter took a train for Rewari at 7 p.m. They remained at Railway Station Rewari throughout the night. On the next day they were sitting and talking in a park the Police party came and apprehended them. The testimony of Girdhari Lal PW has been noticed in substance in the First Information Report lodged by him there is no need to recapitulate the same.