GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOPAL and Kanhaiya Lal, the appellants herein, were put to trial before the learned Special Judge SC/st (PA Cases) Jhalawar who vide judgment dated May 28, 2001 convicted and sentenced them as under:- U/s. 376 IPC: Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 342 IPC: Both to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that informant Puri Lal (Pw. 7) submitted a written report (Ex. P-9) at Police Station Bakani on September 26, 2001 with the averments that while on the last Sunday he had gone to the house of his in-laws and remained there, Kanhaiya Lal and Gopal took the advantage of his absence and committed rape on his daughter Kamla (fictitious name) after calling her to the house of one Durgi. This information was communicated to him by his son Kailash. On that report a case was registered under sections 376 and 342/34 IPC and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC/st (PA Cases) Jhalawar. Charges under sections 376 and 342 IPC and Sec. 3 (2) (5) SC/st (PA) Act,1989 were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, 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 herein above.

(3.) IN the case on hand concededly the prosecutrix, joined the company of appellant Kanhaiya on her own and the report of the incident was lodged after a great delay. Although the prosecutrix stated that two grown up persons committed intercourse with her continuously for a period of 40 minutes, the medical evidence negatives this contention. No external or internal injury was found on her genital parts. She in her initial version admitted that the room where intercourse was committed had been bolted from out side by somebody and after 5 to 7 minutes somebody opened the room and she could go back to her house. IN these circumstances, this possibility cannot be ruled out that when she and Kanhaiya were alone in the room of Gopal, somebody had seen them and bolted the room from outside and in order to save her reputation she made false allegations against the appellants. The testimony of prosecutrix appears to be highly untrustworthy and the conviction of the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case is unsustainable.