KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by accused appellants Kishanlal & Ratanlal against judgment and order dated 23/10/1985 passed by Sessions Judge. Tonk in Sessions case No. 32/84, by which each of appellants have been convicted for offences u/ss. 354 and 341, IPC in place of charges u/ss. 376/511, IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default, further 2 months RI) u/s 354 IPC, while only one months RI u/s 341 IPC.

(2.) It arises in following circum-stances:On 07-04-1984. Bajranglal (PW6) lodged written report (Ex.P8) with police station Todarai Singh (Tonk) stating, inter-alia that on 06-04-1984 at about 9.30 A.M. or 10 A.M. his wife Godawari (PW1) and his cousin Rameshs wife Sumit (PW2) had gone to jungle of Basera for collecting cowdungs, and seeing them alone. Godwari (PW1) was thrown on the ground by appellant Ratanlal, who tried to commit rape upon her while Sumitra (PW2) was thrown on the ground with the same intention by another accused appellant Kishnlal. Upon this report, police registered a criminal case initially for offences punishable u/ss. 354, 341 and 323 IPC, for which FIR (ExP9) was chalked out, during investigation, both Godwari (PW1) and Sumitra (PW2) were got medically examined and their injury reports are Ex.Ps. 1 and 2. However, after usual investigation, challan was filed for offences punishable u/ss. 376/511 and 341 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed charges for offences u/ss. 376 read with S. 511 and 341, IPC, against each of accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As many as eight witnesses were produced by the prosecution and, statements of accused u/s. 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. One witness was produced in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) During the course of argu-ments, learned counsel for the appellants has not assailed the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment dt. 23-01-1985 but it has been argued on behalf of the appe-Ilants that keeping in view nature of accusation alleged to have been made long back in the year 1984, and found to have been proved, because challan was filed for commission of rape which stood disproved and instead, they have been held guilty of culpable act of trivial nature as has been evident from the material adduced by the prosecution on record, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them.