NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 22. 11. 1978 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused-appellant Narayan guilty of the offences under Ss. 376 and 451 [pc and has sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment on the first count and to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, on the second count. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that Mst. Koyali wife of complainant Tulchharam, on 23. 10. 76 at about 9 A. M. went to her Bada to collect cowdung and to give fodder to the animals. It is alleged that accused Narayan who is the real brother-in-law of Tulchharam's sister entered the Bada and finding Mst. Koyali alone caught bold of her from back and pulled her to the ground and then raised her Ghaghara and committed rape with her. Mst. Koyali cried for help. She caused bite-injuries to him by her teeth and moved her legs and hands for releasing herself from the hold of the accused. It is alleged that on hearing her cries Bherudan Bhambhi and Jogida Bhambhi came there and they pulled the accused from over Mst. Koyali. THE accused then ran away from the Bada of Tulchharam and in the way. when Tulchharam met him, he threw stones on him and ran away,

(3.) MR. S. R, Singhi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has arged chat the learned lower court has taken a very superficial view of Che evidence on record. According to him, on a clear scrutiny of the evidence on record, the case of the prosecution fail to the ground. He has submitted that in this case, the FIR has been lodged late and the testimony of the eye witnesses is contradictory. He has further submitted that a false case has been foisted against the accused-appellant to wriggle out of the case which was instituted by Che accused-appellant against the complainant Tulchharam on 23. 10. 1976 itself.