PARSU ALIAS PARASRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal on behalf of two accused-persons Parsu @ Parasram Son of Shri Damo and Nadan Son of Shri Poonya, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24. 8. 2002 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and District & Sessions Judge, Karauli, in Sessions Case No. 58/2001, whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Section 376 (2) IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 342 IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment to each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. PW-4 Sua Devi lodged a written report (Exhibit P-3) a Police Station Todabheem, District Karauli, that on 13. 7. 2001 at 5. 00 PM when she went for taking water on the hand-pump nearby Primary School, Morda, all of sudden both the accused-persons, who were sitting hiding themselves in a room of the school, came out and by gagging her mouth took her to the room and committed forcible sexual intercourse without her consent, one by one. The police registered a First Information Report No. 245/2001 on 17. 7. 2001, under Section 376 IPC and started investigation. After completion of the investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against both the accused-appellants. The case was committed for trial. The trial Court framed charge against accused-appellant Parsu @ Parasram under Section 376 (2), 342 IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and against accused- appellant Nadan under Section 376 (2) and 342 IPC. The accused- appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Curt, after considering the evidence on the record and hearing the arguments of both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned above.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting the accused-appellants for the above offence. He contended that there is no evidence on the record to prove that sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix. He referred the medical report (Exhibit P. 10) of the prosecutrix, in this regard. He further contended that there was a delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which is fatal to the prosecution case. THE incident is alleged to have taken place on 13. 7. 2001 whereas the FIR was registered on 17. 7. 2001, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution case and this ground itself was sufficient to give the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. He also contended that from the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that her statement is self-contradictory and is not corroborated with any statement of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, her statement does not inspire confidence and it is liable to be discarded looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the accused appellants may be given the benefit of doubt. He also contended that although it is a case of false implication but from the statement of the prosecutrix, the present case appears to be a case of consent and looking to the age of the prosecutrix being above 16 years, it cannot be said to be an offence of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, therefore, the accused-appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

(3.) IN Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2002 (10) SCC 14), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found the omissions and contradictions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix creating doubt about the truthfulness of her version and rendering her testimony unsafe to rely upon to convict the accused-appellant.