MANAK RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant Manak Ram S/o Hammirji by caste Chokidar R/o Sandia Distt. Pali against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2006, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No. 2 Pali, in Sessions Case No. 9/2006, by which the trial Court held the accused appellant Manak Ram guilty for the commission of offence under Sections 376 and 450 I.P.C. Under Sec. 376 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and under Sec. 450 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

(2.) Prosecution story as disclosed during the course of investigation and trial is that on dated 15.1.2006 at 9.45 P.M. Padma alongwith her father Birdi Chand lodged First Information Report at Police State (sic Station) Bagri Nagar Distt. Pali stating that on 12.1.2006 when the father of the prosecutrix was out of station and her mother had also gone to village Gaguda, she was all alone in her house then at 3.30 P.M. Manak Ram came and forcibly brought her to the sheds used for gazing goats and committed rape with her. On this report, Criminal Case No. 8/2006 was registered against Manak Ram and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, medical examination of prosecutrix as well as of the accused was conducted. Statements of 14 witnesses and in defence three witnesses i.e. DW-1 Manak Ram, DW-2 Sint. Patasi and DW-3 Jeewa Ram were also examined. Accused was arrested and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Manak Ram in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sojat from where the case was committed to Sessions Judge, Pali, who in turn transfer the case to the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No. 2, Pali. Accused appellant was charged for offence under Sec. 376 I.P.C. and to which he did not plead guilty for commission of offence and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. Krishna Gopal, PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh, PW-3 Smt. Narmada, PW-4 Birdhi Chand, PW-5 Devi, PW-6 Pukh Raj, PW-7 Kailash Chand, PW-8 Ram Lal, PW-9 Rohitas, PW-10 Dr. Rakesh Garg, PW-11 Ram Pal, PW-12 Surya Bhan Singh, PW-13 Kishan Lal and PW-14 Padma. The incriminating evidence adduced against the appellant was put to him for explanation under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 376 and 450 of the I.P.C. and awarded the sentence as indicated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of prosecutrix PW-14 Padma alongwith evidence of prosecutrix PW-14 Padma alongwith evidence of PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh who is a medical expert. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the evidence of PW-14 Padina has not been corroborated by any other independent witness and further her age at the relevant time was found to be in between 16 to 18 years and it is a settled principle of law that two years variation can be possible in the case of medical expert's evidence and further PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh deposed that there were signs of earlier sexual assault, therefore, no offence can be said to be proved against the accused-appellant.