LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11-11-1991 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raising-nagar whereby the appellant Lal Chand has been found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and for non-payment of fine Additional simple imprisonment for 2 months has been awarded.

(2.) According to the prosecution story, the accused during the night intervene 21st and 22/12/1988 at about 11.30 p.m. went to the house of PW. 1 Ram Lal situated in Rawala Mandi. Ram Lal, who earns livelihood by plying a jeep was away and his wife PW. 4 Sunder Devi was sleeping in the house along with her three kids. The accused knocked at the gate on the pretext that he has to deliver the keys and when the gate was opened by PW/4 Sunder Devi, he effected his entry in the house and pounced upon Smt. Sunder Devi. He tied a towel forcibly around her mouth, fell her down and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. After the incident a hue and cry was raised on account of which two neighbours PW/2 Bhagirath and PW/6 Moola Ram got awakened and came out of their respective houses. They saw the accused running in the light of the jeep standing opposite of the house of the prosecutrix. The cloth fastened around her mouth was taken away by PW/6 Moola Ram and then she narrated the incident to Bhagirath and Moola Ram. Next day on 22-12-1988 her husband PW/1 Ram Lal returned to his house and she informed him about the incident. The FIR Ex. P/1 was lodged with a delay of 4-5 days on 26-12-1988 at 2-30 p.m. A case under Section 378 of the IPC was registered and the challan before the Munsif and judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh was filed under Section 450 and 376 of the IPC. The case was committed to the said trial Court. A charge under Section 376 of the IPC was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. PW. 1 Ram Lal, PW. 2 Bhagirath, PW. 3 Manphool Ram, PW. 4 Sunder Devi, PW/ 5 Hanshraj, PW. 6 Moola Ram, PW. 1 Sohan Lal, PW. 8 Dr. Dalip Ram, PW. 9 Banarshi Das and PW/ 10 Surja Ram were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. No defence evidence was led by the appellant. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. the appellant pleaded that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. The learned trial Court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment against which this appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned PP for the State and have perused the record of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there has been inordinate delay in the lodging of the FIR and no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the delay. Moreover, it is submitted that the incident occurred at about mid-night and it is highly suspected that the culprit could be identified. Regarding the source of light from the jeep, it is contended that the jeep was brought by the accused himself and it is unusual that he would leave the light on and risk his identification. In other words, it is argued that the story of identification in the light of the jeep has no connection with reality and cannot be believed. Further, it is argued that none of the three kids of the prosecutrix has been examined. Specially, it is argued that the eldest son Radha Krishna was aged 8 years and he could be a very good witness but he has been withheld. Further, it is argued that there are contradictions in respect of the cloth which was allegedly tied around the mouth of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the totality of the circumstances the story has become highly suspected and the accused-appellant is entitled to acquittal. The learned PP has supported the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court.