SAILANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 16.01.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Criminal Case No. 29/1987 convicting the accused -appellant No. 1 under Sec. 366 IPC and sentencing him to suffer 3 years R.I. and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - in default thereof to undergo further 1 month's R.I. Thereby the appellants No. 2 & 3 were convicted under Sec. 368 IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default to undergo further period of 15 days R.I. I have heard Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is traceable to the FIR dt. 13.03.1987 filed by one Shri Bhajan, father of the victim, Gyani whose whereabouts were not known prior to six months therefrom. According to the complainant, he having been informed that his daughter had been spotted on 07.03.1987 from Tejaji Chowk, Indore -Malhar Gate, Madhya Pradesh, the FIR was lodged. On completion of the investigation after registration of the police case, chargesheet was submitted against the appellants under Secs. 366, 376 & 379 IPC whereafter charge was framed by the learned trial Court against appellant No. 1 under Sec. 366 & 376 IPC and against appellants No. 2 & 3 under Secs. 366, 376 & 368 IPC. The appellants denied the charges. At the trial, prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutrix and the Investigating Officer. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Sec. 376 IPC but convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) REFERRING to the evidence of the prosecutrix as a whole, Mr. Choudhary has argued that it would be apparent therefrom that the prosecution case is wholly untrustworthy. As admittedly according to the prosecutrix she was taken from one place to other by train, her inertness and omission to raise any hue and cry, established her free will to accompany the appellant No. 1 thus rendering the charges levelled against him wholly unfounded. The learned counsel also relied on the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW -3 who stated that at the earliest point of time following recovery of the prosecutrix, she did not implicate appellants No. 2 & 3. The learned counsel for the appellants thus has argued that the impugned judgment and order if sustained, would be a travesty of justice.