HARI GUJAR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the accused -appellant, Hari, who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City under Sec. 376 and 307, IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment on each count and a fine of Rs. 500/ - on each count, and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months on each count. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 4 -6 -1976, Mst. Pansuri and Mst. Sakuri had gone from the village to the jungle to collect cattle -dung. When these two ladies were returning to the village at about 11:00 a.m. the accused met them and took off the basket of cattle -dung from the head of Mst. Pansuri and told her that now he shall commit sexual intercourse with her. Mst Pansuri caught hold of the hand of Mst. Sakuri. The accused is alleged to have slapped Sakuri who left the hand of Mst. Pansuri. Then the accused dragged Mst. Pansuri to a place nearby and made her lie down. Thereafter, the accused lifted the petticoat of Mst. Pansuri and committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent. After having committed the sexual intercourse the accused asked Mst. Pansuri to go away. Thereafter, he told her not to tell the village people about the incident. Thereafter, when Mst. Pansuri was going towards the village the accused followed her and caught hold of her and threw her into a well which was near by. As Mst. Pansuri knew swimming, she kept on swimming. Then after sometime the village people including her husband came to the well and rescued her.

(2.) On behalf of the prosecution, PW/1 Pansuri, PW/2 Sakuri, PW/3 Babulal PW/4 Dhudiya, PW/5 Dr. Ratan Chand Totuka, PW/6 Dablu, PW/7 Ganpti Ram Yadav and PW/8 Shobh Singh were examined. The accused did not lead any evidence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Ss. 376 and 307, IPC, and sentenced him as indicated above.

(3.) On behalf of the accused -appellant, it was contended that no case has been made out against the accused appellant either under Sec. 376 or under Sec. 307, IPC. It was contended that the accused is a boy of 18 years; while the prosecutrix Mst. Pansuri is aged 30 years. It was also contended that she is the third wife of her husband Babulal PW/3. It was also contended that Mst. Pansuri is a mother of number of children, and that it is humanly impossible to conceive that rape could have been committed in the broad day light at 11:00 a.m. on a public passage, especially when Mst. Sakuri was present there. It was also contended that sexual intercourse, if it had at all taken place, was with the active consent of Mst. Pansuri, and when she felt that persons from the village have seen her indulging in such an act she jumped herself into the well to save herself from the disgrace which would have followed on the information being given in the village by the person who might have seen her. It was also contended that there are no marks or of violence of resistance on the body of Mst. Pansuri. Her bangles were not broken. She was putting on a pair of 'chappals' which she continued to put or during the entire period when the intercourse was committed and that no buttons of the cloth which she was wearing on her breast were broken. It was also contended that there are no marks of violence or injury to her private parts. It was also contended that PW/2 Sakuri does not support the version of Mst. Pansuri It was also contended that the uncorroborated testimony of Mst. Pansuri should not inspire confidence of this Court, and that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal deserves to be accepted.