RAGHUVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two criminal appeals, on behalf of accused-appellant Raghuveer Singh S/o Ranvir Singh, through two different Advocates, are directed against the impugned judgment dated 24th of September, 2003 passed by the Judge, (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 147/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (b) of the Indian Penal Code (for shot, 'the IPC') and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional one month's rigorous imprisonment; under Section 354 IPC to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred), in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional twenty days rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 342 IPC to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred), in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional ten days rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) PW-19 - Gayatri Devi lodged a written-report (Exhibit P-14), at Police Station Phagi, alleging therein that her daughter Sharda, aged about 13 years, is the student of Class VI in Government Secondary School, Dabich. On 10. 11. 2000 Sharda, when came back at the home at 5. 00 PM after school time, told her that Shri Raghuveer Singh, P. T. I. of the School, when the School was going to be closed at about 3. 30 P. M. , called her to serve him water. She served him water in his room. P. T. I. shut the door of the room from inside; she raised hue and cry but he put her hand on her mouth and she was threatened of dire consequences. He removed her clothes and ravished her. On his threatening she washed her underwear in the room itself. He also told her not to tell anyone about the incident otherwise she will be given a severe beating. The report could not be lodged immediately looking to involvement of their family prestige in the Society and there was no one to come with them at the police station to report the matter. Her brother-in-law (Nandoi) Ram Kalyan came to her house on 12. 11. 2000 and she narrated him the incident. Thereafter Ram Kalyan told the incident to the Sarpanch of the village and the villagers, and came to lodge the report.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that this is a case of rape with virgin girl aged 13 years. Although as per the medical-report her age has been shown in between 15-16 years, but she was the student of Class VI, therefore, her age could not have been more than 13 to 14 years at the relevant time. It is also contended that the prosecution has explained the delay of four days in lodging the report satisfactorily. THE husband of the informant was not present in the village. It was a rural area. THE day of 11th November was a holiday on the occasion of 'guru NANAK DEO JAYANTI'; 12th November was Sunday. On 13th November they went to School and narrated the incident to the Sarpanch of the Village and the villagers, and immediately thereafter the FIR was lodged on 14th of November, 2000. It is further contended that now there is settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of the Court then on her sole testimony, conviction can be based and it is not necessary that her statement should be corroborated with the medical evidence. It is contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated with the statements of PW-15 Kiran Soni, PW-16 Dhapu Soni, PW-18 Manju Sharma and PW- 19 Gayatri Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that under the threatening of the accused, the prosecutrix herself washed her underwear in the room itself, therefore, the evidence of blood or semen on her clothes could not be procured in the case. THE prosecutrix was medically examined on 15th of November, 2000 i. e. after five days of the incident, hence other injuries on other parts of her body could not be detected. It is, therefore, contended that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant and the present appeals deserve to be dismissed.