BALMUKAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four connected appeals from the same judgment of the Sessions Judge of Jodhpur in a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeals Nos. 90 and 96 are by Balmukan, 91 by Surjia, and 95 by Sanwaria.

(2.) The prosecution story was briefly this. Mt. Ramjot a young girl of about 14 years of age, had gone from her house in Mochian-ki-ghati, Jodhpur City, at about 11 a.m. on the 2nd of May, 1949, with food for her brother Narain who was working in the 'karkhana' of Narain Dass inside Sojati Gate, Sanwaria appellant is said to have met her outside Tam-bakoo-ki-gali, and asked her to accompany him to bring a gas lamp lying in the public park. She was told that she would be paid some-thing for doing the job. She agreed to the proposal, as she had done such jobs for one Amaria, who deals in gas lamps, and at whose shop Sanwaria appellant used to work. She, therefore, went to the 'karkhana' of Narain Das and left the food she had brought for her brother there, and came back to Sanwaria, who was waiting outside with a cycle. Sanwaria then took her to the public park; but there was no gas lamp there, and she enquired where she had to go for the gas lamp. Sanwaria told her that it wag a short distance away, and thus enticed her away to a place near the aerodrome. There the two of them sat down under a 'neem' tree, and the girl again asked Sanwaria why she had been brought there. Sanwaria told her that he would have sexual intercourse with her; but the girl refused to agree to this. At this stage, Surjia appellant appeared on the scene, and asked Sanwaria why he had brought the girl there, and threatened to telephone to the police. Sanwaria then begged Surjja not to take this course, and told him that he could also have sexual intercourse with the girl. The girl, however told both that she would not agree to this sort of thing. Thereupon both of them lifted her, and took her to a bath room in the Racecourse Bungalow nearby. There the third appellant Balmukan, who has some job in that Bungalow, met them, and it is said that Sanwaria offered him also that he could have sexual intercourse with the girl. Thereafter the girl was first raped by Sanwaria, then by Balmukan, and finally by Surjia. It is said that every time one man finished intercourse with her, she wanted to get out from the bath-room, but was forced back into the bath-room so that the next man may rape her. The result of this was that she began to bleed profusely from her private parts. She is said to have screamed for help; but no one came to the Bungalow. It is said that a fourth man had come to the scene, and had rebuked the appellants, who had told him that he could also have sexual intercourse with the girl; but that man declined the offer, though he did nothing to help the girl. The clothes of the girl got blood stained, and so Sanwaria made her wash her cloths and take bath, and thereafter the clothes were allowed to dry in the sun, and then she put them on, and left the place with Sanwaria. As she was unable to walk on account of the bleeding from her private parts Sanwaria put her On the handle of his cycle after some distance, and brought her up-to a 'pyao' on the Ratanada Road, and left her there. The girl asked Sanwaria what she should say to her mother about the bleeding. Sanwaria advised her to tell her mother that she had fallen down, and had thereby got injured. The girl was eventually taken home by some persons who live near the pyao. On arrival at her house, she told her mother that she had been injured by a fall. She was then taken to the Ummaid Hospital, where she gave the same story of (being?) injured to the lady doctor. The lady doctor, however, was not satisfied with this story of the girl, & eventually her father Champa Lal made a vague report in the thana on the 7th or 8th of May, 1949. Thereafter, a head constable went to the Hospital, and asked the girl to tell the truth. She then came out with the story, which has been narrated above. Thereafter Sanwaria was produced before the girl, who identified him to be the person who had taken (her?) away. Later, an identification parade was held, in which the girl correctly identified the other two appellants also, namely Balmukan & Surjia. All the three appellants confessed, & their confession were recorded by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate Jodhpur, and thereafter the case was sent up for trial to Court.

(3.) All the three appellants pleaded not guilty, and said that they had been falsely implicated by the police.