KAMJI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Kamji against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, dated the 19th of May, 1962, whereby he has been convicted under sec. 354 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigours imprisonment.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that the husband of Mst. Sukhi was working as a labour in manganese mines at Kala Khunta. On the 4th of September, 1961, Mst. Sukhi took the food to the mines for her husband Bhura but when she reached there she found that on account of drizzling it was declared a holiday and her husband had already left for his village. When she was coming back to her village, the accused caught hold of her in the jungle on the main road and tried to take her to a nearby pit in order to commit rape on her. She resisted this action of the appellant and while offering that resistance the contents of the earthen pot in which she was carrying some liquid food for her husband fell down and also the 'chapaties' scattered on the road. She was dragged to a nearby pit and there accused Kamji tried to commit rape on Mst. Sukhi. She raised a cry which attracted Dita (PW/5) and Jeta (PW/6) who were working in the nearby fields. When Dita and Jeta reached the spot of occurrence Kamji ran away from that place. Information was sent to the husband of Mst. Sukhi who came to the spot and took her away to his house in the village. Next day at 6 p. m. an information was lodged with the police. After investigation a challan was put up under sec. 376 Indian Penal Code and the accused was committed for trial to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. After holding trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the story put forth by the complainant Mst. Sukhi was an exaggerated one. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge did not rely on the statements of the eye-witnesses Dita (P. W. 5) and Jeta (P. W. 6) in respect of the story of committing rape on Mst. Sukhi and therefore acquitted the accused for an offence under sec. 376 Indian Penal Code, but found that the accused was guilty of indecent assault on Mst. Sukhi to outrage her modesty and convicted him under sec. 354 Indian Penal Code. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed in this Court.