BHERUN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-6-1994, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused- appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 363 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 I.P. Co and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to under go six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C.

(2.) Accused-appellant Bherun Lal was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 376 and 363 I.P.C. for kidnapping Miss Beena D/o Jagdish a minor girl of about fourteen years, from the house of Jagdish in the intervening night of 28-10-1993 and committing rape upon her. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-10-1993, in the night Miss Beena, who had gone to see the programmes on television in the house of her grand-father, did not return to her fatherTs house till 12.00 in the night and, therefore, her father Jagdish along with her uncles Girish Kumar and Prem Shanker went in search of her in the auto-rickshaw of one Amar Lal. They were searching Beena at various places. In the morning, at about 4.00 a.m., when they reached near the water-pond they saw accused Bherun Lal and Miss Beena on a bi-cycle. Miss Beena was sitting on the rear seat of the bi-cycle. On seeing these persons, Beena got down from the bicycle and came towards them while the accused tried to run away but he fell down from the bicycle and received injuries. Accused Bherun Lal was caught hold by these persons and brought to Police Station, Kotwali, Jhalawar, where the report of the incident was lodged. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eleven witnesses. The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and produced two witnesses in support of his case. The defence taken by the accused was that he was caught by Jagdish and others while he was sleeping in a bus near the bus stand situated adjacent to the house of Jagdish and was given beatings and thereafter, produced before the police. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C., as stated above. It is against the judgment dated 10-6-1994 that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is not even an iota of evidence to connect him with the crime. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and they have tried to make improvements during the trial from their earlier version given by them during the investigation. It has also been contended that the seals on the articles did not remain intact throughout and the articles, which were received by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur were not of the present case and the seals on the articles have been tampered with. The evidence of recovery of these articles does not inspire confidence and, therefore, the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory does not connect the appellant with the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below.