KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Sushil Pujari, learned Counsel for the complainant.

(2.) The subject matter of challenge is the judgment and order dated 15.1.1988 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 182/1986 convicting the appellant No. 1 under Sections 376, 366 and 342 I.P.C. and sentencing him to the extent as indicated therein. By the same decision, the appellants No. 2 and 3 have been convicted under Sections 366 and 342 I.P.C. and they have been sentenced to suffer three and a half years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence of abduction and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment of one month and for their conviction under Section 342 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment. It is submitted at the Bar that meanwhile the appellants No. 1 and 3 have expired.

(3.) The prosecution case relates back to the F.I.R. that was lodged by PW-3 Devi Lal the husband of the prosecutrix Kamla, who allegedly had been abducted by the appellants where after the appellant No. 1 had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On completion of the investigation in the case, charge-sheet was laid against the appellants under the aforementioned provisions of the I.P.C. and when they denied the charge, they were made to stand trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined many witnesses including the prosecutrix (PW-2). She stated on oath that on the date of incident while she was working at the well near her house, the accused appellant No. 2 Ram Singh, who was her brother-in-law call her to accompany him. He was then in the company of the other two appellants. According to her, the appellants forcibly dragged her from the well .side and she was taken to the house of the appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal where he committed sexual intercourse with her. In cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that there was a custom in their community of giving a girl in "Natha", a kind of marriage relationship with a person of choice, by her family members. She stated that her parents by taking of Rs. 5,000/- from appellant No. 1 Kishan Lal made the same arrangement. She admitted further that at the house of Kishan Lal, all religious and customary rites relating to the "Natha" had been performed whereafter she lived with him (Kishan Lal) as his wife.