VISHRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby accused appellant Vishram has been convicted under Sections 376 and 392 IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer R. I. for six months and R. I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer R. I. for three months respectively. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the accused-appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 3. 10. 99 `parcha-Bayan' Ex. P3 of Smt. Ramu Devi (PW2) was recorded by the SHO, P. S. Rajgarh, District Alwar in Zanana Hospital, Rajgarh wherein it was stated by her that yesterday at about 5. 00 p. m. she was going from her in-laws' village Sehra to her father's village Luharwala. When she covered some distance from Swami Dayal bus stand she was dragged to a nearby field by accused Vishram and he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Having satisfied his lust, accused Vishram inserted three fingers into her vagina which resulted in tearing of vagina and profuse bleeding. She made hue and cry. Hearing her outcry, daughter of Harlya Bairwa, R/o Kali Pahadi came there. On seeing her, accused Vishram snatched her golden ornaments namely Kundal, Khangwali, Jantar and silver ornaments namely Mangalsutra, Chain, Kanakati, Saanth, Paijeb and fled away. From the place of occurrence she was taken to village Luharwala on motor-cycle by a person who had also reached there. From village Luharwala she was brought to Rajgarh hospital by her mother, Uncle Hajari and Aunt Dhanki. It was also stated by Smt. Ramu Devi that on inquiry she came to know the name of the culprit who had committed rape on her. On the basis of `parcha-Bayan' Ex. P3, SHO, P. S. Rajgarh registered the F. I. R. and investigated the case. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellant in the Court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh who committed the case to the Court of learned Special Judge.

(3.) IN Aman Kumar & Another vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379, the Apex Court has observed as under:- " It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. IN the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice. "