BAGDI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a jail appeal by accused Bagdiram against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh dated February 25,1983 convicting the appellant under section 376, I P. C. and sentencing him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' like imprisonment.

(2.) IN the afternoon of 11. 2. 82, the prosecutrix Ramudi (P. W. 1) a girl of tender age of 11-12 years, went to her field situate in village Mayakhera to bring the grass. When she reached there, the accused who was hiding himself came out from the standing crop. He caught hold of her and threw her down. Thereafter, he lifted her skirt and committed rape on her. She started weeping but the accused did not leave her. Hearing her screams, P. W. 2 Mangu and P. W. 3 Jeeva, who were passing by that side, came there. Seeing them, the accused ran away. They brought the gril to her house. On the next day, P. W. 2 Mangu went to police station, Arnod and lodged report Ex. P/l of the occurrence. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was made on 12 2. 82 by P. W. 7 Dr. Anish Ahmed, the then the Medical Officer-in-charge, Government Hospital, Arnod. He was of the opinion that there had been sexual act out side the vagina and upto the portion below the hymen, but there was no penetration into the hymen. The accused was arrested on 12. 2. 82. The clothes viz. skirt of the prosecutrix and underwear of the accused were seized and sealed. On chemi-cal examination, human semen was detected on both of them. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against he accused in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratabgarh, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh. The learned trial Judge, framed a charge under section 376, IPC against the accused. He denied the guilt and claimed absolute innocence. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and filed some documents. IN defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the charge duly proved against the accused. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused has taken this appeal.

(3.) IT was next contended that the accused was wrongly conivcted. There was no convincing and acceptable evidence to show that the girl was raped by the accused. IT was argued that the prosecutrix P. W. 1 Ramudi and P. W. 2 Mangu were closely related inter se. P. W. 3 Jeeva was a chance witness. No reliance can be placed on what they testified against the accused. I have gone through the evidence of these witnesses carefully.