MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 1-5-1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases, Dungarpur, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under S. 354, IPC and sentenced him to undergo six month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts are that on 25-4-1990, when prosecutrix P.W. 2 Kumari Kalawati D/o Ram Charan, H.C., S.P. Office, Dungarpur was returning from the house of her mother's sister (Mausi), her neighbours Raju Dhobi and Ajay took her in a hut and committed rape with her. Thereafter they took her in an abandoned house situated in the Housing Board Colony, Dungarpur, where she was kept till 27/04/1990, and repeatedly committed rape with her. On 27-4-1990, P.W. 1 Ram Charan, Head Constable, while searching her daughter in the Housing Board Colony, heard her screams. At that time he was accompanied by Laxman Katara, Jivat Ram and Lal Shanker. They went towards that house. Kalawati came out of the house and she did not tell anything to her father but narrated her woeful tale to her mother in the night. It is alleged that Ram Charan, Head Constable went to Police Station, Kotwali, Dungarpur for lodging the First Information Report about that incident. At that time appellant Man Singh, A.S.I. met him in the Police Station and asked Ram Charan about the whereabouts of Kalawati, Ram Charan thereupon informed that Kalawati was at his house. Appellant told Ram Charan that he would come to his house and interrogate Kalawati and thereafter register the case. It is alleged that the appellant went to the house of Ram Charan the same night at bout 11 p.m. and interrogated the prosecutrix, Kalawati upto 1 a.m., but she did not utter any word. Thereupon, the appellant told Ram Charan that he would take Kalawati at the Police Station for further interrogation, because she might be feeling shy and embarrassed before her parents. It is alleged that thereupon Ram Charan sent Kalawati along with the appellant, who brought her to the Police Station on his motor cycle. The appellant instead of taking her to the Police Station took her inside his residential quarter and committed rape with her. Thereafter the appellant brought Kalawati to her house next day at about 4 a.m. and told Ram Charan that since he was proceeding on leave, therefore, he will not register the case and that asked him to do whatever he liked. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30-4-1990, Ram Charan met the Dy. S.P., who directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali to register the case against Raju and Ajay. It is further the case of prosecution that on 1-4-90, Kalawati disclosed to her mother that on 27-4-90 accused appellant instead of taking her to the Police Station had taken her to his residential quarter, where he had committed rape with her. Thereupon, Ram Charan submitted a written report dated 2-5-90 to the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur on 4-5-90 against the appellant, whereupon a case under Ss. 366A. 342 and 376, IPC was separately registered against the appellant. On radiological examination the doctor opined that the age of Kalawati was about 15 years. After usual investigation a challan was filed against the appellant before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur, who committed the case. The trial Judge charged the appellant for offences under Ss. 342, 366-A and 376, IPC and under S. 3(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who denied the inducement and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The appellant in his plea recorded under S. 313, Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and stated that on the day of alleged incident he was posted as Incharge of the out Post, Manak Chowk, Police Station Kotwali, that on 27-4-90 about 8 p.m. Ram Charan, Head Constable along with one Junior Engineer had come to the said Out Post and enquired as to whether anybody had lodged a complaint against him. Ram Charan further told him that on 25-4-90 his daughter had eloped and come to his house in the evening of 27-4-90 for taking her clothes and that thereupon he locked her in his house, that he suspected that his neighbour Raju Dhobi had abducted her, that he went to Raju Dhobi's house and inquired from him and that thereupon Raju and his mother quarrelled with him and threatened that they would make a complaint against him to the Superintendent of Police. The appellant further stated in his plea that the said Raju Dhobi had filed a complaint against Ram Charan on 28/04/1990, that since he and Ram Charan had undergone the police training together at Udaipur they were close friends, that he apprehended that the family members of Raju Dhobi may not go to the house of Ram Charan and quarrel with him, so he assured Ram Charan that he would be coming to his house. The appellant further stated that thereafter from the police out post he came to his quarter, where his wife was living with him and after informing his wife that he would be late, he went to the house of Ram Charan at about 9 p.m. and interrogated Kalawati, but she did not utter any word. Thereupon Ram Charan told him that he was very much worried about the conflict of his daughter Kalawati, who had eloped many times and told him that she should be sent to rescue home (Nari Sadan). Ram Charan further told the appellant that Raju Dhobi and his family members may attack his house in the night therefore he should take away Kalawati to his residence. The appellant in his plea further stated that thereupon he took Kalawati with him, to whom he treated as her foster daughter and carne to his quarter, which was situated near the quarter of S.H.O. Ajeet Singh, to whom he also narrated the said incident. The appellant also stated that he along with his wife slept in a room, while Kalawati was sleeping in another room, that in the night Kalawati started weeping that he went to her and patting on the back asked her to sleep, that his wife also asked her to sleep, but Kalawati did not stop weeping, that thereupon at about 4-30 a.m. he took Kalawati to her house and entrusted her to Ram Charan. The appellant further stated that at that time Ram Charan told him that Raju Dhobi will file a case against him and requested to arrest Raju Dhobi under Ss. 107 and 151, Cr. P.C. There upon he informed him that no case for Raju Dhobi's arrest was made out under Ss. 107 and 151, Cr. P.C. and that he has to go for the marriage of his daughter, he was proceeding on leave and asked him to go to S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali for seeking his remedy. The appellant further stated that on 19-4-90 he proceeded on leave. He also informed him that Ram Charan is in the habit of black-mailing persons after lodging false cases against them. The appellant also filed a copy of the complaint dated 28-4-90 filed by Ashok Kumar, the father of Raju Dhobi against Ram Charan, copies of certain F.I.R.s lodged by Ram Charan, wherein final reports were given. In his defence, appellant also examined his wife, D.W. 1 Smt. Ummed Kanwar, who supported his version. After trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the offences under Ss. 366A and 376, IPC as also for the offence under S. 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but found him guilty for the offence under S. 354, IPC and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I have heard Shri Sanjay Mathur the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R. S. Rathore the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court.