SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Shyam Sunder has filed this appeal, being aggrieved against the judgment dated November 24, 1979 of Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 31/79, convicting and sentencing him u/s 361 IPC to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/ - (in default of payment of fine to one month's R. I.) and u/s 366 IPC to four years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default of payment of fine to two months' R. I. ).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case may be narrated. Mathura Lal s/o Daulat Ram made a report, Ex. P/1, at Police Station Suraj Pole-Udaipur, at 8. 00 a. m. on 28. 10. 78. THE report was signed by Mathura Lal, who is the father of Mst. Snehlata, alias Tammu. In the report it was given out that Mst. Snehlata had disappeared since 10. 30 a. m. of October 26, 1978 and was not traceable inspite of the search made.

(3.) IN this connection the statement of Snehlata (PW/7) is relevant, This witness has stated that when she was going to the market, then the accused* appellant forcibly got her seated in a tempo and took her to Udai Pole, where she was kept in a room, She also stated that the room was locked from outside and, thereafter, the accused brought new clothes, which were worn by her, Then they went to the Railway Station, Udaipyr. They went to Nathdwara where they lived on the third floor of a house, She also stated that at Nath-dwara the accused appellant had sexual intercourse with her after threatening her. Thereafter, they went to Chittor, where they stayed in a Tourist Bungalow, There also the accused had sexual intercourse, From Chittor they went to Ujjain and at tjjjain they lived at the house of the sister of the appellant, She stated that the accused left her at his sister's house and returned after 2 1/2 hours. From his sister's house, the accused brought her at Udaipur and took her to a hotel, from, the hotel, she was taken to her father's house, This witness has been cross-examined at length. She was also confronted with her previous statements Ex. D/l add Ex 0d/2. After scrutiny of the entire evidence of this witness, the learned trial court held that she had gone with the appellant voluntarily on her own accord, The learned trial court rejected the testimony of this witness that the accused-appellant had put fear on her and under the fear committed sexual intercourse.