SURESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC, having been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and having been imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further directed to undergo three months' simple imprisonment in default thereof, vide judgment dated 31.08.2007, passed by the Upper District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg (Bharatpur), the appellant has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.1996, Smt. Vimla (P.W.3) lodged a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Deeg, wherein she claimed that the appellant, Suresh, was running a photo studio in the name and style of Kamlesh Photo Studio. She further claimed that in January 1996, he had called her daughter, the prosecutrix (name withheld) (P.W.4), who was thirteen years old at that time, to his photo studio on the pretext that he will take good pictures of her. When she reached the photo studio, he gave her a barfi (a sweet meat). After eating the barfi, her daughter became unconscious. According to her, he took off her daughter's clothes and committed rape upon her. He also took photographs of her in nude and semi-nude positions. Subsequently, he threatened her that in case she were not to come to his studio, he would make these photographs public. Due to this threat, her daughter continued to visit the studio. On 20.08.1996, the prosecutrix (P.W.4) went to her sister's place and came back on 26-09-1996. Upon her return, the appellant again called her to the studio and threatened her that in case she does not come to his studio, he would publicise the photographs. On 11.10.1996, he came to their house and verbally fought with them. On 16.10.1996 and 17.10.1996, he again came to their house and assaulted both the complainant and the prosecutrix. He also showed the indescent photographs to the complainant and threatened her that he would make them public. The complainant further claimed that when she went to the police station, the police refused to register a case against the appellant. Therefore, she has filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P.C., and that of the prosecutrix and other two witnesses under Section 202 Cr. P.C.

(2.) Meanwhile, on 02.11.1996, the complainant again lodged a complaint before the same Magistrate. Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate sent the complaint for further investigation to the Police Station Deeg. On the basis of this complaint, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No. 526/1996. The appellant challenged the filing of the second FIR on the basis of the same set of facts before this court. This Court quashed and set aside the FIR No. 526/1996. However, it directed that the investigation made in the said FIR, the relevant papers thereof, should be submitted before the Judicial Magistrate who shall take these documents on record in the complaint filed by the complainant. Subsequently, the Magistrate took the cognizance against the appellant for offences under Sections 376 IPC and for offence under Section 3/8 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.

(3.) In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and submitted twelve documents. But, the defence did not examine any witness. It did, however, submit two documents (both of documents have been marked inadvertently as Ex. D.2). After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 31.08.2007, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.