GANGADHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prosecutrix (name withheld by us), a girl of sixteen was gang raped. This was the gravamen of the charge put against the appellants Gangadhar and Sumer Singh, who were put to trial before learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Jhunjhunu, and convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated April 30, 2003 as under:-

(2.) It is the prosecution case that on May 23, 2000 the informant Kurd a Ram (PW 2) submitted a written report at Police Station Gudha (Jhunjhunu) stating therein that on May 12, 2000 at 8 a.m. his daughter, the prosecutrix, while she was returning from village Gudhagaorji, Sumer Singh, Mool Chand and two other persons kidnapped her and committed rape on her. On May 16, 2000 while they were planning to take her to Bombay, she raised cry the neighbours rescued her and took her to the informant's house. The report could only be lodged after she regained consciousness. On that report a case was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn. Statements of witnesses were recorded, prosecutrix was medically examined, the appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Jhunjhunu. Charges under Sections 363, 376, I. P. C., 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under S. 313, Cr. P. C., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case. We find no substance in this submission. In our opinion the delay has properly been explained, on account of unconsciousness of the prosecutrix the FIR could not be lodged promptly. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 : (1996 Cri LJ 1728) indicated thus (Para 8): (Para 7 of Cri LJ) :-