MOVNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th February, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District, Sirohi convicting the appellant Movna of offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced for cognate offences i.e. 366, 458, 354 & I.P.C. All the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that P.W. 3 Laxman Jogi along with his wife P.W.1 Mst. Ramba and their daughter Miss Aarti aged 3 years used to reside in a hut on the road in Moras. P.W.3 Laxman was in the field to take watch the crop of gram. At about 10.00 hearing the out cry of P.W.1 Mst. Ramba, he rushed to the hut. P.W.2 Durga Ram also reached on the spot. Mst. Ramba disclosed that the appellant Movna entered in the hut and tried to molest her. However she escaped and i came out. The appellant Movna picked up her daughter Mst. Aarti and ran away. He alongwith his wife and P.W.2 Durga Ram went in search of the accused and Mst. Aarti. She was found lying injured in a drain. There was profuse bleeding from her private parts. An information of the incident was immediately given to the S.H.O. Police Station, Pindwara on telephone. P.W.8 1 Dinesh Singh the S.H.O., Police Station , Pindwara reached on the spot. A written report of the occurrence Ex. P.7 was submitted to him on the spot. The police registered a case for offence under sections 376, 366A, 354 and 458 I.P.C. After usual investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the appellant for the said offences.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 11 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Analysing the evidence, the trial court found the prosecution case proved and as such convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner noticed above.