VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bharatpur, by his judgment dated 13.1.1988, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against the conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The incident out of which this case arises, occurred on 17.1.1985. The prosecutrix Ms. Maya Kamr, who at the time of incident, was about 24 years' old, was studying Nursing Course and residing as tenant in the house of appellant's father. On 18.1.1985 at about 3:30pm she reported to Police Station Kotwali that at about 9:00pm on the preceding night, when she was studying in her room, the appellant came to her room with a tape-recorder in his hand asking her that his room socket was not working and that he wanted to check the tape-recorder in her room socket. He put the tape-recorder on full volume and latched the room from inside. When she tried to open the latch, she was pushed on the bed and the appellant, taking knife out of his 'lungi', threatened her with life and pressing her mouth with the other hand, committed rape upon her. She cried but because of high volume of tape-recorder, the neighbours could not hear. Further that while leaving, the appellant threatened her with dire consequences in case she reported or told about it to anyone. After the appellant left the room she went and informed the neighbours - Smt. Savitri Devi/PW.6 and her husband Virendra Singh/PW.5 and slept in their house. Next morning after the appellant left home, she went to lodge the report at Police Station. On her report, the case was registered and investigated.

(3.) Upon completion of necessary investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in the Court of area Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, founding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the appellant to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to stand his trial for the aforesaid offence. On being charge-sheeted, the appellant denied the incident and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in all to substantiate the case against the appellant. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that the proxecutrix had rented their house four months ago and that at odd hours, she was having male visitors in the house, which was objected to by him and his father and, therefore, she has falsely implicated him. One defence witness DW.1 Ram Prasad was examined to substantiate the contention of the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the prosecution evidence and passed the judgment under appeal.