MAHESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana District Bharatpur by which he has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 323, IPC and sentenced as follows :

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances that on 28.4.1999, P.W.3 Triveni Devi wife of Dhara Singh aged about 24 years lodged the report Ex.P/3 with the Police Station Halena; District Bharatpur stating therein that on 27.4.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. she went to Jungle for purpose of taking back her cows and when she was returning and when she reached near the well of Ramkaur thereupon, accused appellant came from her backside, caught hold of her waist and put her on the ground and thereafter committed rape with her. It was further stated in the report that she tried her best but the accused appellant did not leave her and after committing rape the accused appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. It was further stated in the report that after she reached at her house in weeping condition and since her husband Dhara Singh, P.W.2 was outside of the village and had gone for purpose of playing band therefore, the report was not lodged on 27.4.1999 and the same was lodged on 28.4.1999. On this report, the police chalked out the first information report Ex.P/4 and started investigation. During investigation through Ex.P/6 broken bangles of Triveni P.W.3 were seized and accused appellant was got arrested through arrest memo Ex.P/7 and medical examination to ascertain the fact whether rape was committed with Triveni P.W.3 or not was got conducted by Dr. Ram Khiladi Meena, P.W.1 and that report of medical examination is Ex.P/1 which shows that the prosecutrix sustained three injuries. After investigation, challan was filed by the police before the concerned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges for the offence under Sections 376 and 323 IPC were framed and read over and explained to the accused appellant who denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. During trial as many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution, recorded the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence two witnesses were examined. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above.

(3.) IN this appeal, the following submissions have been raised - (i) that there is delay in lodging of the first information report Ex.P/3 by the prosecutrix Triveni, P.W.3 as the incident took place on 27.4.1999 and the report was lodged on 28.4.1999; (ii) that the medical evidence does not corroborate the statement of Prosecutrix Triveni P.W.3 as injuries sustained by the prosecutrix may be self inflicted; (iii) that the fact that the bangles were broken is not mentioned in the report Ex.P/3; (iv) that since a quarrel took place between the prosecutrix Triveni, P.W.3 and Vimla wife of accused appellant, therefore, because of that quarrel this case was lodged against the accused appellant to implicate him falsely; and that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the defence version; and (v) that the learned trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on the statement of P.W.3 Triveni Devi. On the basis of the above contentions it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 and 323 IPC.