SATAY NARAIAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Deepak Soni, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr.Pradeep Shrimal, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan.

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred seeking interference with the judgment and order dated 22.12.1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.1/1985 convicting the appellant under sections 376, 341 & 392 IPC. For the first offence, he was thereby sentenced to suffer 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment and for the second, to undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment and for the third offence, to undergo 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo further 1 month's rigorous imprisonment. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) The prosecution case is traceable to the first information report lodged on 22.08.1984 at about 7.00 p.m. by one Radhey Shyam with the Police Station, Chaksu alleging that on 21.08.1984 at about 5.30 p.m. when his wife Smt.Sushila had gone to ease herself in a nearby Jangle, the appellant grabbed her took away the valuable ornaments worn by her and also outraged her modesty by removing her Sari. On this report, the police registered a case under sections 379, 341 & 392 IPC. In course of the investigation, the victim alleged that she had been raped by the appellant and thus, the investigating agency added section 376 IPC also to the tally of the offences. Eventually chargesheet was laid against him. The appellant denied the allegations, whereafter the charge was framed against him under sections 376, 341 & 392 IPC. In the trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses including the prosecutirx, her husband, the informant and, amongst others, Rukmani, who was projected by the prosecution as an eye-witness. Neither any medical witness was examined and nor the report of any chemical analysis of the wearing apparel of the victim and her vaginal swab was proved. The appellant, in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the charge. He was, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced as above.