JOGENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Jogendra Singh in order to challenge the judgment dtd. 17/1/2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 23/2012 whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below :-

(2.) Shri S.D. Goswami, learned counsel representing the appellant urges that the prosecution case is doubtful because FIR was lodged after nearly 17 days of the incident. As per the story set out in the statement of the prosecutrix PW1 Mst.R, the appellant approached her on 23/3/2012 and expressed his infatuation to her and told that he was desirous of marrying her. Then the accused tried to subject her to sexual intercourse. He stripped himself and also pulled down the salwar of the prosecutrix and tried to indulge in sexual intercourse. She refused on which the accused took her away in a car to Kalawali. There also, the accused tried to establish sexual relations with her but could not succeed. Then she was taken at Pili Mandori to the house of Rajpal. There also, the accused tried to establish sexual relations but failed. Finally when she stated that she would raise hue and cry, the accused left her at the village bus stand on 26/3/2012. Learned counsel contends that the story as set out in the statement of the prosecutrix is totally false and fabricated. The prosecutrix admittedly returned back on 26/3/2012 but the FIR was lodged as late as on 8/4/2012. As per her own story, the prosecutrix was at the mercy of the appellant after he allegedly kidnapped her. If at all the accused desired, he could easily have subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse. He thus contends that ex-facie the offence under Sec. 376/511 IPC is not made out against the appellant. For the offences under Ss. 363 and 366A IPC, he prayed for a lenient view and urged that the substance sentences awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him which is around 21/2 years.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant's counsel. However, he too does not dispute the fact that the FIR was lodged after a significant delay i.e. on 8/4/2012 even though the prosecutrix returned back on 26/3/2012.