RAM DAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 against the judgment and order dated January 14, 1993 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, convicted him therefore and instated of sentencing him forthwith to any kind of sentence released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of 2 years on execution of personal bond in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- with a surety in the like amount and for keeping peace and being of good behaviour during the aforesaid period of probation.

(2.) The relevant facts are:- That on September 8, 1989 at about 8.30 a.m. RW. 2, Man Singh lodged a written F.I.R. (Ex.R 3) with Police Station Laxmangarh alleging therein that on September 6, 1989 at about 8 p.m. when his wife P.W. 1 Smt. Vimla had gone out to respond to the call of nature and after easing herself was coming back, she was caught hold of from behind by the appellant in the lane, taken behind Bitoduas and was raped. It was further alleged that the incident was witnessed by P.W. 3 Shri Bapu and RW. 4 Banwari. It was also stated that on seeing the witnesses reaching, the appellant tried to run away but was caught hold of by them. However, the appellant latter on managed to get himself released from their hold and ran away after leaving his dhoti, a knife 1 rupee note and two bundles of Beediet behind him. On this report, RW. 9 Bharat Singh ASI, registered a case under Section 376 IPC against the appellant. After conducting the necessary investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted and on being committed to the Court of Session, he was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the charge under Section 376 IPC.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant. The appellant took no specific plea in his defence. He simply stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case out of enemity. No evidence in defence was produced.