RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal has been directed against the judgement dated 9-1-95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Hanumangarh whereby he convicted the appellant for the offences u/ss. 457 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further undergo R. I. for fifteen days on each count and further directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that on the night intervening 29th Feb. and 1st March, 1992, PW 1 Smt. Guddi aged about 28 years was sleeping in her parents' house. Her niece PW 2 Kumari Indra aged about 13 years was also sleeping in the same room. It is alleged that at about 10-11 PM, Smt. Guddi was awakened and found that her cousin, appellant Rajendra, who had a knife in his hand, entered into her room, switched off the light and with an intention to commit rape with her, fell over her. She raised alarm and Indra was also awakened. It is alleged that thereupon the appellant inflicted a knife blow causing injuries on the right cheek of the prosecutrix and fled away. Immediately thereafter, her neighbours also came there. On the report of Guddi, FIR Ex. P. 1 was drawn at Police Station, Hanumangarh town. PW 6 Ramphal, S. I., inspected the site, prepared the site plan and memo thereof and recovered blood soaked cotton from the quilt lying on the cot. On 1-3-92, the doctor examined the injuries of Smt. Guddi and found an incised wound 1/2" " x 1/4" " x muscle deep on her right cheek vide injury report Ex. P. 2. The x-ray examination did not reveal any bone injury and, as such, the said injury was simple in nature. After usual investigation, a challan was filed in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Hanumangarh, who in turn committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The appellant was charged for the offences u/ss. 458, 324 and 376/511 IPC. He pleaded not guilty. The advocate for the appellant u/s. 294(3) did not dispute the genuineness of the arrest memo Ex. P. 1, injury report of Smt. Guddi Ex. P. 2 and the X-ray report Ex. P. 3 and admitted those documents. The prosecution, therefore, did not examine the doctor. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The appellant in his plea under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the offences u/ss. 458 and 376/511 IPC, but convicted him for the offences u/ss. 457 and 324 IPC and sentenced him in the manner detailed above. Hence this appeal.