DEV KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal through Central Jail, Kota, is directed against the judgment dated 21-10-1997 in Sessions Case No. 16/1997, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran convicted and sentenced three accused-appellants Dev Kishan, Ramkumar and Meghraj with 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000.00, in default one year rigorous imprisonment under S. 376(2)(g), IPC, and 5 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 500.00, in default one month R.I. under Section 366-A, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 8 Ramcharan, along with his daughter Anar Bai lodged a written report Ex. P. 10 at police station Nahargarh at 7 p.m. on 21-1-1997 with the averments that on 10-1-1997 his daughter went to her 'Nanihal' along with her maternal uncle Chauthmal. Sh. Chauthmal came and informed him on 18-1-1997 that Anar Bai is missing since 17-1-1997. It was further stated in Ex. P. 10 that his daughter returned home along with Nand Kishore and Gajendra Singh at 7 p.m. on 19-1-1997 and according to his daughter she was forcibly taken by Dev Kishan, Ram Kumar, both residents of village Maharaj-pura and Meghraj resident of village Rambilas from the field of her maternal uncle where she had gone with meals for her grand-mother (Nani). It was also informed by her that she was taken to forest and all the three accused persons committed rape on her. Again all the three accused persons committed rape with her in the night. In morning of Sunday, she was taken to Baran by Dev Kishan and Ramkumar and there her uncle Nand Kishore and brother-in-law Gajendra Singh came and took her to home. The accused persons ran away. It is also stated in Ex. P 10 that they went to lodge a report at police station Mothpur on Monday. But they were informed that this occurrence took place within the area of police station Nahargarh.

(3.) Formal FIR No. 12/1997 Ex. P11 was registered under S. 366, 363 and 376, IPC and after usual investigation charge-sheet came to be filed. In due course, this case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran. Charges under Ss. 366-A and 376(2) were framed against the accused-appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined as provided under Section 313, Cr. P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence and produced two witnesses in defence, D.W. 1 Bhagwan Bai and D.W. 2 Harnarayan. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated herein-above.