AZIZ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN challenge is the judgment and order dt. 21.08.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Swaimadhopur in Sessions Case No. 9/1989 convicting the appellant under Sec. 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6 months. I have heard Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 21.06.1988, a FIR was lodged by Mst. Raj Bai at Police Station Malaram Dungar alleging that while she had gone to answer nature's call at about 5 -6 PM in the same evening in the nearby Jungle, one Suleman and Saleem alongwith the another one person, whose name she did not know, were present in the vicinity and on her way back, the third person, whose name she did not know, intercepted her and committed rape on her. She having narrated the incident to her mother, an FIR was lodged. Following the registration of the police case, investigation was made and eventually chargesheet was laid against the appellant under Sec. 376 IPC and two others namely Suleman and Saleem under Sec. 376 read with Section 114 IPC. They were accordingly charged to which they pleaded "not guilty". At the trial, the prosecution examined the victim Mst. Raj Bai (PW -2), her mother Mst. Muli (PW -3) and Dr. Chhajuram Meena who medically examined her and on the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted under Sec. 376 IPC whereas the co -accused were acquitted for the failure of the prosecution to prove their association with the offence in any manner.

(3.) IN her evidence, the prosecutrix stated that in the evening of the date of occurrence she had gone to the nearby Jungle to answer nature's call and at that time from the nearby well, the appellant who was present there held her and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She stated that the other co -accused Suleman and Saleem, though continued to take bath and did not come near. She also identified the Petticoat seized by the police and produced in Court. She stated further that after the incident, she returned home and narrated about the same to her mother and her mother -in -law. She disclosed further that her husband used to live in Delhi to earn his livelihood. In cross -examination, the prosecutrix stated that she did not know the appellant before the incident and that she even did not see him earlier. She stated further to have raised alarm at the time of rape on her by the appellant. She denied the suggestion that she had extra -marital relationship with one Ramji Lal. She also denied the suggestion that the appellant was known to her before and that she had illicit relationship with him for which she consented to the act.