HARISH TOLANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 110/92. THEy were found guilty, convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated May 18, 1998 as under - 1. Parvej Ansari U/sec. 120-8 IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- 292/120-B IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) 2. Moijullah @ Puttan U/s 120-B IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- 292/120- B IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) 376 IPC Imprisonment for life & fine of Rs. 1000/- 3. Israt Ali U/s 120-B IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- 292/120- B IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) 4. Mahesh Ludhani 376 IPC. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- U/s 120-B IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- 292/120- B IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI' 5. Kailash Soni U/s 120-B IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- 292/120- B IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) 6. Sayed Anwar Chisti U/s 120-B IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- 292/120- 8 IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) 7. Harish Tolani U/s 120-B IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- 292/120- 8 IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) 8. Shamsuddin @ Maradona U/s 120-B IPC 10 Years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- (in default to further undergo two years RI) 376/120-B IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1. 000/- 292/120- B IPC Two Years RI and fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo three months RI) All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. THE aforequoted judgment of conviction has been assailed by the appellants in the instant appeals.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the conviction need narration. Hari Prasad Sharma (Dy. S. P. (North) Ajmer (PW. 9) conducted a secret enquiry in regard to sexual exploitation of girls by certain persons in Ajmer. At the conclusion of enquiry a report (Ex. P. 6) was submitted to S. P. Ajmer on May 30, 1992. This report came to be lodged as FIR No. 107/1992 at Police Station Ganj Ajmer wherein Nasim @ Tarjen, Parvej, Kailash Soni, Sohil, Moijullah @ Puttan, Ishrat, Harish and Puroshottlam @ Babli were named as accused. THE investigation of the case was subsequently transferred to C. I. D. (C. B. ). In the course of investigation various nude photographs were recovered and accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation as many as four charge sheets were filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ajmer. All the cases were consolidated in Sessions Case No. 40/92 and tried by learned Sessions Judge Ajmer. Charges under sections 120-B, 376/120-B, 292, 292/120-B, 509/120-B and 376 IPC were framed against the appellants who denied charges and claimed trial. THE case of the prosecution set out in the charge sheets was that the accused were guilty of rape and criminal conspiracy to get girls into their net on various false pretensions and promises. THEir modus operandi was that the girls subsequent to being sexually abused would be photographed in compromising position to facilitate their continual exploitation both physically and mentally. THE prosecution examined as many as 148 witnesses, articlised 20 items and exhibited 175 documents. THEreafter explanation of the appellants under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recor-ded. THE appellants denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. Four witnesses were examined by appellant Syed Anwar Chisti in defence. THE learned trial Judge after hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) MADHU Bala (PW. 17) deposed that she was introduced with Nafees. Anwar, Saleem, Farookh and Ishrat by Sangeeta. She alongwith Sangeeta and Chhavi Dhaka had gone to Poultry Farm of Saleem in a Maruti Van which was driven by Maradona. Salim and Anwar were also sitting in the Van. Nafees, Israt and Farookh also came over there. Nafees asked Israt to show her the Farm House. She accompanied Israt who sat under a tree and became emotional and started reciting poems. Thereafter they ate food and she came back. After about four days she again went there and Israt took her to a room and used forced with her. Thereafter Israt persuaded her to go with him but she declined. Israt then threatened her and she had to go with him to the house of Farookh where Nafees committed rape with her. After some time Farookh also raped her. They raped her many a times. Puttan and Sohel Gani also raped her and photographed her. They black mailed her and did not return her photographs. She told about this incident to Sangeeta also. She identified Farookh, Israt, Maradona and Puttan in the court and refused to identify other appellants. She was shown Photo Article 5 in the Court. She could identify her photograph but could not recognise as to who was with her in the photo.