DHULJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.12.1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Banswara, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC and has sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and has imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and has directed the petitioner to further undergo a sentence of three months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.1.1986, Mohar Singh (P.W. 10) lodged a report at Police Station Patan about an incident that had occurred on 22.01.1986. According to the complainant, he was teacher at Government School, Kotra. According him, he and his wife lived in a rented premises. However, a week before the incident, they were asked to vacate the house by their landlord. In the same village, the appellant, Dhulji, used to work as Malaria worker in the Health Department. Since the complainant knew the appellant, the appellant offered that they could stay in his quarter. According to the complainant, the quarter consisted of two rooms, a kitchen, a latrine and a bathroom. While the complainant and his wife used to stay in the bigger room, the appellant used to stay in the smaller room. On 22.1.1986, the complainant left his wife in the quarter and went to village Varlipada. At the relevant time, the appellant was in his room. The complainant further claims that after he left the house, the appellant went to his room and ravished his wife. When she shouted for help, another teacher, namely, Babu Lai, rushed to her rescue. But, when he opened the door, the appellant escaped. When the complainant came back to the house around 9.30 a.m., became to know about the said incident. Immediately, he went and informed about the said incident to the Principal, Jaipal. Subsequently, he had his wife went to Varlipada in order to lodge the report. On the same day, he went to Banswara Police Station. He told about the said incident to the Police at Banswara Police Station. But, he was told to report the matter at Patan. At Patan, he was told that the SHO is available only at Kushalgarh. Therefore, he went to Kushalgarh. At Kushalgarh, he found the SHO, who brought him back to Patan and lodged the report.

(2.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and submitted nine documents. However, the defence, neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the appellant had given shelter to the complainant and hi wife. It is only when he asked him to vacate the quarter, as it was a Government quarter, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Secondly, falsity of the case is writ large, as there is an inordinate delay of two days in lodging of the FIR. In the words of the learned counsel, the appellant was leisurely in filing of the FIR. In fact, he has failed to give any explanation for the inordinate delay. Thus, the period of two days was utilized by the complainant to weave a story against the appellant.