MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated June 27, 2012 of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, whereby Man Singh, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376/ 511 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) It is the prosecution case that with regard to an incident of 29-12-2010, the complainant Chhote Lal filed a complaint on 10-1-2011 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar, wherein it was stated that on 29-12-2010, he took his wife Bina along with her younger sister Suman for treatment by a doctor at Alwar. Since the doctor was not available that evening, needing to stay the night they all went to the room of Rajesh who lived along with Man Singh in a rented room on the 60 ft road at Alwar. It was admitted that during the night around 1 a.m., Man Singh took the complainant's wife on the roof of house, while the complainant along with his sister-in-law was sleeping in the room. When complainant's wife did not return to the room for a while, the complainant came out of the room to the roof and found Man Singh having sex with his wife. Thereupon the complainant raised an alarm, whereupon Suman came out of the room. When admonished Man Singh employed with the police was alleged to have threatened the complainant. It was stated that thereafter around 4.00 a.m. when the complainant woke up he did not find his wife Suman and Rajesh in the room it was alleged that Man Singh had taken them away and since then the whereabouts of his wife were unknown.

(3.) On the complaint lodged the learned Magistrate invoking his powers under Section 156(3) Cr. RC. sent the complaint to PS Mahila Thana Alwar. Thereupon FIR No. 6/ 2011 was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from her father's house but denied to be medically examined. She also denied any incident with her having happened as alleged. She later changed her version and after exculpating the appellant in her first statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. later inculpated him in her 161, Cr. P.C. statement and additional statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C.