SHEOKI SHEOKAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Sri Ganganagar bearing No. 49/98. Learned Special Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated August 12, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 376 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000.00 in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) As per prosecution story Nirmala Devi prosecutrix (PW. 2), who was admitted in the hospital on February 17, 1998, stated in her parcha bayan that in the preceding day when she had gone to graze her cows in the field, the appellant came over there, caught hold of her and took her to a pit. Thereafter the appellant forcibly opened the string of her salvar and committed rape on her. She made attempt to cry but her mouth was gagged. After committing rape the appellant fled away. She then came to the hospital along with her parents. On the basis of parcha bayan the police station Gharsana registered FIR No. 66/1998 under Section 376 IPC and investigation commenced. The prosecutrix was medically examined, statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, site was inspected and the appellant was arrested. On completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Sri Ganganagar. Charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven witnesses. The appellant in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. claimed innocence and stated that false case was instituted against him at the behest of one Rafiq. Two witnesses in defence were examined by the appellant. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently canvassed that the prosecutrix did not know the appellant prior to the incident, in such circumstances it was necessary to get the identification parade of the appellant conducted. It is further urged that the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix could not be the result of rape. The prosecutrix was the only witness and her evidence ought to have been scrutinised crytically. Since necessary witnesses Han Kishan, Jaswant and Mukh Ram were not examined by the prosecution, whole prosecution story becomes doubtful. It is further urged that the defence witnesses of the appellant were not properly examined and thus conviction and sentence against the appellant cannot be sustained.