KANA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused Kana Ram against the judgment dated 16/8/2001 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and was awarded a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00. For nonpayment of fine further simple imprisonment for 6 months has been awarded.

(2.) The incident of rape allegedly took place on 23/11/1999 at about 4-4.30 p.m. in Village Bhavi under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bilara. Next day on 24/11/1999 the written FIR Ex. - P/1 was allegedly lodged by Smt. Sua W/o Harji Ram at 1.00 p.m.

(3.) According to the FIR Smt. Sua was working in the field of Gokul Ram and the accused appeared there and tried to start conversation with her. Smt. Sua suspected mala fides on the part of the accused and proceeded for the village. The accused allegedly followed her and in the field of one Omprakash (PW/3) pounced upon her and effected forcible sexual intercourse. She raised cries, as a result of which, PW/2 Narayan Ram was attracted. Seeing Narayan Ram approaching the accused took to his heels. The husband of the prosecutrix Harji Ram (PW 1) alongwith Omprakash also appeared on the scene. Smt. Sua narrated the incident to her husband and consequently, the FIR was lodged. Regarding the delay, explanation was offered in the FIR, according to which, due to threat issued by the accused, the FIR was lodged with the delay. A case under Sections 341, 323 and 376 of the I.P.C. was registered and after the investigation was over, challan against the accused was filed in respect of the said offences. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty. PW/1 Harji Ram, PW/2 Narayan Ram, PW/3 Omprakash, PW/4 Ganpat Ram, PW/5 Babulal, PW/6 Mangla Ram, PW/7 Dr. Bheem Dan Detha, PW/8 Bhakhar Ram, PW/9 Nathuram, PW/10 Smt. Sua and PW/11 Rajendra Prasad were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. DW/1 Vishan Singh, DW/2 Heera Lal, DW/3 Dalla Ram, DW/4 Khetaram, DW/5 Jagdish and DW/6 Hanumanram were examined in defence. The defence contention was to the effect that there was a dispute regarding some passage and Omprakash instructed Harjiram (husband of the prosecutrix) to block the passage and consequently, there was a quarrel and on account of this enmity, this false case was foisted upon the accused. DW/1 Vishan Singh has deposed to the effect that on 23/11/1999 the accused was working with him since 8.00 a.m. in the morning till 7.00 p.m. in the evening and thus, could not be present at the alleged place of occurrence. DW/2 Heeralal has deposed to the effect that on the day of occurrence, the prosecutrix alongwith two other women were working till 6.00 p.m. in the fields and after 6.00 p.m., they started for the village. DW/3 Dalla Ram, DW/4 Khetaram, DW/5 Jagdish and DW/6 Hanuman Ram have all deposed that there was a quarrel in respect of a passage between the accused and Harjiram.