SHOUKAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned Adl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 24/1985 by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 366 and 354 IPC in place of S.376/511 IPC and sentenced in the following manner :-

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :- On 27-5-1985 at about 12.30 p.m., PW 1 Rampyari (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix), aged 35 years, who was Nurse (ANM) in the Primary Health Centre, Basni District Nagaur lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur through proper channel and thus, presented through PW 5 Dr. S. S. Purohit, who was Medical Officer and Incharge of Primary Health Centre, Basni stating inter alia that on that day at about 3.30 am, two persons, the name of one of them was Shoukat (accused appellant) and she did not know the name of other person, came to her house and knocked the door and accused appellant Shoukat told her that there was a case of delivery near the house of Mokli and he requested her to go there and upon this, she became ready and she informed him that first she would ask from her Medical Officer and upon this, accused appellant told her that doctor was also sitting there and thereafter, she accompanied them and when they reached near the Talab on the way, prosecutrix PW 1 Rampyari asked them that this was not the way for the purpose for which she was going, then they told that they were very near to the place and as soon as they proceeded further, seeking lonely place, accused appellant Shoukat caughthold her hand and asked her to put off her clothes, upon this she made hue and cry, but accused appellant Shoukat put his hand on her mouth and put her on the ground, as a result of which, she received injuries on both knee and accused appellant Shoukat also beat her and when she made hue and cry, neighbours including some women came there and seeing them, accused appellant Shoukat left her and ran away from the scene and another accused, who was with him, also ran away. It was further stated in the report that many people tried to apprehend the accused appellant Shoukat and other accused person, but they could not succeed. Thereafter, she submitted the report before PW 5 Dr. S. S. Purohit, who forwarded the same to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur and thereafter, it was sent to the Police Station Nagaur, where PW 7 Ugam Singh, who was SHO in that Police Station, registered the case for the offence under Section 376/ 511 IPC and chalked out regular Ex. P/11 and started investigation. It may be stated here that on 30-5-1985, prosecutrix PW 1 Rampyari submitted another report Ex. P/2 before PW 7 Ugam Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Nagaur stating inter alia that she had now come to know the name of another accused, who was with accused appellant Shoukat and his name was Harun (accused appellant). It was further stated in the repot that during scuffle, she had also lost her watch. During investigation, police seized the clothes of the prosecutrix PW 1 Rampyari consisting of one saree, one patticoat, one blouse through seizure memo Ex. P/4. The blouse was torn and button was also found broken and patticoat was also found torn over the area before knee joint and they were stained with blood. The prosecutrix PW 1 Rampyari was got medically examined by the Medical Board on 27-5-1985 at 7.00 p.m. and one of the members of the Medical Board was PW 2 Dr. Radha Kishan Soni and her injury report is Ex. P/5, which shows that she received five injuries. The accused appellant Shoukat was arrested on 29-5-1985 through arrest memo Ex. P/8 and simultaneously, accused appellant Harun was also arrested on 29-5-1985 through arrest memo Ex. P/9. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 24-8-1985, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur framed charges for the offence under Sections 366, 376/511 and 354 IPC against the accused appellants. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. In defence, three witnesses were produced by the accused appellants. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur through his judgment and order dated 16-2-1987 convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 366 and 354 IPC in place of S. 376/ 511 IPC and sentenced them in the manner as indicated aboe holding inter alia that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under Sections 366 and 354 IPC against both the accused appellants. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.

(3.) In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants :- 1. That learned trial Judge has not scrutinized the evidence of the prosecutrix PW 1 Rampyari correctly and her statement suffers from inherent infirmities and furthermore, though it is written in the report Ex. P/1 that neighbours including many women reached on the spot, but none has been produced and especially Kalsam, whose name was disclosed by prosecutrix in her statement, has not been produced, therefore, in absence of their evidence and in absence of corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix, her statement should not have been believed by the learned trial Judge. 2. That there is no legal evidence so far as the accused appellant Harun is concerned, as his name was not mentioned in the report Ex. P/1 and no identification parade has been conducted. Thus, this accused appellant be acquitted of all the charges framed against him. 3. That so far as the accused appellant Shoukat is concerned, no case for the offence under Section 36 IPC is at all made but and if Court comes to the conclusion that he has committed the offence under Section 354 IPC, as he has remained in PC and JC for nearabout 28 days, he may be granted the benefit of probation or he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.