MOHI-UD-DIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have assailed the judgment passed1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch, convicting appellant No: 1 for the offences U/Ss 376 and 342 RPC and the appellant No: 2 Under Sections 37. /109 and 342 RPC. The appellant No. 1 was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment U/S 376 109 and 342 RPC. And a fine of Rs. 100/ -in default of which, he had to undergo further six months simple imprisonment and was also ordered to face a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment U/S 342 RPC. Accordingly, appellant No: 2 was ordered to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for an offence U/S 376/109 RFC and pay a fine of Rs. 5Â §/ -, in default of which, be had to undergo further one months simple imprisonment. He had also to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and was also ordered to face a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment Under Section 342 RPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, which have given rise to this appeal are that the complainant Asda R/O village Bela Bala, Tehsil Mandi Poonch, was away from his house on 25/26.11.1976, and had gone to Mandy to purchase some household goods there. The appellants "here -in -after referred to as the accused" entered into the house of complainant in the evening when his daughter prosecutor Mst. Zaina accompanied by her cousin sister Mst. Zooni were present there. The prosecution story relates that the accused forced their entry into the complainants house and got prepared tea and breads. They took the same and extinguished the light and the hearth, by throwing water over it. The accused No: 1 Ghulam Mohi -ud -din caught hold of Mst. Zaina while Mohamada held back Mst. Zoona outside the house. The accused committed rape thrice during the night upon the prosecutor Zaina Bi while the other accused Mobamda held Zooni outside the house and did not allow the girls to raise hue and cry. The accused Ghulam Mohi -ud -dln kept the mouth of Zaina Bi shut and held her arms while Mst. Zoona was kept under constant threat by the other accused. They left the house early in the morning and the prosecutor and her companion Mst. Zoona revealed the matter to Mst. Farzi sister of the complainant Asda, who, thereafter, reported the matter to the police at Loran on 27.11.1976.

(3.) SUCH an in ordinate delay has not been explained and, therefore, the irresistible conclusion drawn would be that the FIR has been lodged with the police station after due thought and consideration, and the accused have been falsely implicated and indicted to have committed the crime, for which they have been convicted and sentenced. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused in recognition of his argument, has referred to AIR 1973 SC 51; wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 154 of the Cr. P.C. have held, as under: -