STATE Vs. RAM PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellantState against the judgment dtd. 11/6/1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Churu ('trial court') in Special Case No.48/94, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges under Ss. 450, 366 and 376 IPC, and Sec. 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act as well as Sec. 336 IPC read with Sec. 3(1) of the SC/ST Act; however, the accused-respondents were convicted by the learned trial court under Ss. 147, 323 and 447 IPC. However, vide the impugned judgment, looking to the custody period already undergone by accused-respondent No.1-Ram Pratap @ Lilu and accused-respondent No.2-Ramniwas, they were directed to be released, while treating their custody period, already undergone by them, as the period of sentence for their conviction.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that a written report was lodged by one Mahaveer Prasad Meena (complainant - father of the prosecutrix) on 11/3/1994 at about 05:30 p.m., alleging therein that on 6/3/1994, in the midnight, while his daughter (prosecutrix) was sleeping in a room at home, accused-respondents, namely, Ram Pratap @ Lilu and Ramniwas came there and tucked a cloth in her mouth, and forcefully took her to the house of accusedrespondent Ram Pratap @ Lilu; thereafter, both the accused, one by one, subjected the prosecutrix to the forcible sexual intercourse, and after committing such crime, they let her go; after being released from the clutches of the said accused persons, the prosecutrix raised hue and cry; whereupon one Smt. Ghewar and Smt. Bhagwani Devi (mother of the prosecutrix) and other persons came out of their house(s), whereafter, the prosecutrix narrated them the whole incident.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the accusedrespondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the version of the prosecutrix was not only clearly inconsistent with the testimonies of most of the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial court, but the nature of such inconsistencies was such, which projects a a completely different picture of the alleged incident in question, and thus, the said version was not believed by the learned trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, and rightly so.