GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under section 374(2) Crimial P.C. has been filed by the accused-appellant Gopal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th Sept., 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.16.1988 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 376/511 Penal Code and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that Bhairon Lal (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P-2) in the police station Khandar district Sawai Madhopur at 2.00 p.m. stating, inter-alia, that he was resident of village Daulatpura. His daughter Mithlesh was employed as Angan Badi Mahila Karyakarta in village Fariya. He has also stated that on 26th Nov., 1987 between 6-7 p.m. while his daughter was coming home to Daulatpura along with two small girls, namely; Kamlesh daughter of Kedar and Mamta daughter of Birbal and when reached near Bilond nala, accused Gopal son of Mangya by caste Bairwa resident of Fariya stopped their way and accused took Mithlesh in her lap and thereafter she was laid down on the ground. He has further stated that accused made her naked (beadab) and tried to rape the victim and on hue and cry made by the victim and the girls, accused ran away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of above report in the police station case no.152/1987 under section 376/511 Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced.

(3.) During the course of investigation, site inspection note (Ex.P-1) was prepared in the presence of Kedar and Ram Swaroop on 28.11.1987. The accused-appellant was arrested and he was medically examined by Dr. Bihari Lal Bairwa, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Khandar. On examining the accused, he was found potent. Report (Ex.P-5) in this regard was prepared by him. The report was admitted by the counsel for the accused, therefore, the doctor was not examined. In the opinion of the doctor, the accused-appellant was competent to perform sexual intercourse.