BAJRANGA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by 10 accused appellants, who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk vide his judgment dated Jan. 14, 1975 in the following manner :

(2.) The case of the prosecution in, brief is, that Smt. Manbhar PW 4 and her husband Ramnath P.W. 5, had gone to attend a funeral ceremony of mother of accused Bajranga in village Jhola on or about Sept. 8, 1970 The other villagers who had gone to attend the aforesaid ceremony returned back but Manbhar and Ram Nath remained in the village for two or three days. Thereafter, Bajranga called other accused persons from village Molvipura and all the accused persons took Smt. Manbhar by force to village Molvipura. The accused persons tied Ramnath husband of Smt. Manbhar with tree. The accused persons while taking Manbhar to their village Molvipura put cloth in the mouth of Smt. Manbhar so that she may not raise hue and cry. The accused appellant Jagga, committed rape on Manbhar at many places and was forced to remain with Jagga as his wife. The accused persons also took away the silver ornaments of Smt Manbhar. Lala Chanda, Somnath Ramniwas came on hearing hue and cry raised by Ramnath and they untied Ramnath from the tree. Ramnath than lodged F.I.R. of the occurrence vide Ex. P.3 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Tonk on Sept. 24, 1970, who forwarded it to the Police Station, Baroni and on this S.H.O. Baroni also entered a report on Sept. 24, 1970, vide Ex. P. 4. The police after investigation filed challan against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 366 and 376. I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after framing charges read over the same to the accused persons, who denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case,'examined P.W. 1 Lala, P.W. 2 Ram Narain. P.W. 3 Khoob Chand. PW 4 Mst. Manbhar, PW 5 Ramnath, PW 6 Umrao Singh. The accused persons in defence examined DW 1 Rooga, DW 2 Badri, DW 3 Jagnnath, DW 4 Panna, PW 5 Sohan, DW 6 Jagga and DW 7 Jagnnath. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties, acquitted the accused persons for offences under Sec. 147 I.P.C., but convicted them under Sections 366, 368 and 376 I.P.C. in the manner indicated above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however did not record any finding as regards the offence under section 342 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that there are serious infirmities in the prosecution case. The first information report was lodged after about 12 days of the occurrence for which no explanation has been given. Though for the persons namely, Lala, Chanda Somnath and Ramniwas were stated to be eye witnesses, but out of them Chanda and Somnath have not been produced. PW 1 Lala does not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. PW 2 Ram Narain also does not state that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence. Ram Narain in his statement only states the presence of Bajranga on the spot and does not name any other accused person. There are serious contradictions and infirmities in the statements of PW 4 Mst. Manbhar and PW 5 Ramnath, the report of the incident was lodged in the police station on the day of occurrence and according to him Sub-Inspector had come on the spot on the next day and had written certain proceedings but the same have been withheld by the prosecution. Though, it is the case of the prosecution that Mst. Manbhar was examined by a Doctor, but no medical report was produced. No independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case, nor any witness of village Molvipura has been produced to state that Mst. Manbhar was kept in unlawful confinement at the house of Jagga. The statement of Mst. Manbhar that Jagga used to commit sexual inter-course with her and also that used to be seen by his wife, brother and brothers wife is false on the face of it, as no such act could have been committed in the presence of these persons. The accused persons have been falsely implicated oi account of enmity as Prahlad, brother of Mst. Manbhar, has been convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment in having cut the hand of Bajranga accused appellant. It is further contended that delay in lodging the F.I.R, Ex. P/4 before Additional Superintendent of Police Station Baroni on 24-9-70, when occurrence is alleged to have taken place on or about 13th Sept., 1970, goes un-examined and shows falsity of the prosecution case. Reliance in this regard is placed on Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 AIR (SC) 501 . It is further contended that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix Smt. Manbhar cannot be relied upon as her statement is not worthy of any credence and is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution case is fully established from the statement of Mst. Manbhar and Ramnath PW 5 and there is nothing to dis-believe their statements. He has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.