DEVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 8/2/1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.93/93, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Ss. 366 and 376 IPC; for the offence under Sec. 366 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200.00 each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further one month's imprisonment and; for the offence under Sec. 376 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further two month imprisonment; both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that on 26/3/1993 at about 03:00 p.m., one Sita Bai (complainant/prosecutrix) lodged a report before the Police Station, Kurabad, District Udaipur to the effect that after Holi festival, prior to 6-7 days of lodging the report, while she departed from her village, while accompanying one Hanjaram, and reached to Kotda Mamdev, near Jagat Road to work as labourer; she did such job four about five days and one day prior to lodging of the report at about 5:00 p.m., she returned to her hut at Jagat Road, where she was staying with Hanja Ram, Nana Ram, Shanti Lal and Laxmi; after having meal, the prosecutrix went to sleep. It was further reported that in the night, the accused-appellants alongwith one Mohan Rawat r/o Mam Dev came there and make the prosecutrix awake, whereafter, they dragged her away; thereafter, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused-appellants; at about 9:00 p.m., she was dropped by the accused-appellants back to her hut. The whole incident was told by the prosecutrix to Laxmi and other companions, and thereafter, the report was lodged before the police station, as above. 2.1 On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered against the accused-respondents for the aforementioned offences, and after due and thorough investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellants for the offences under Ss. 366 and 376 IPC before the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur; the case upon being committed for trial was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur ('trial court') for the necessary adjudication and trial, whereafter, upon due trial, the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that as is apparent on the face of the record, the prosecutrix and her other companions were working as labourer through Contractor Kurichand, and the present accused-appellants though were also working under the same contractor, but the accused-appellants were later on ousted from the labour work, on count of some money dispute, which resulted into animosity between the said contractor and the accused-appellants; thus, at the instance and instigation, the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused- appellants in this case.