JAMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment dated September 8, 1977 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicted the accused Jamal under Section 365, IPC and the accused Soraj and Ladu under Section 365/109 IPC and sentenced each of them to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ -in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' like imprisonment. By the same judgment, accused Jamal was further convicted under Section 384, IPC and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/ - in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' like imprisonment. His sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused have come -up in appeal and challenged their conviction.

(2.) PUT briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 2 Smt. Roopa, a young married woman in her early twenties, was living with her parents in village Pander, district Bhilwara. The appellants are also residents of the same village. Smt. Roopa had come to her parents on the occasion of Raksha -bandhan. She is a twice married woman. She was first married with one Gopal of village Bihada. Thereafter she Was given in Natra marriage in village Malikhera. On September 12, 1976, when she was going to fetch water, accused Soraj met her in the way and told her that if she wanted to go to her in -laws, he was prepared to render his services for that purpose. Smt. Roopa expressed her inability as her father and brothers were ill. After sometime, she went to the house of accused Ladu to take payment of the money he owed to her for the work she had done in his field. Accused Ladu and Soraj met her there. No money was paid to her by accused Ladu. She returned to her house. In the afternoon on the same day, she left the house to go out -side the village to ease herself. The cote (Nohra) of accused Jamal falls in the way. When she reached near the Nohra of accused Jamal, accused Jamal asked her to come to him. The other two accused were also there with him. When she reached there, accused Jamal told her that her father has again given her in some other Natra marriage. He further told her that in case she wanted to go to her in -laws, they were prepared to help her for that purpose. Smt. Roopa again expressed her inability to go to her in -laws as her father and brothers were ill. Thereafter accused Jamal confined her in a room and locked it. He also threatened her that in case she raised cries, she would be finished for ever. In the mid -night, accused Jamal came in the room and committed rape on her. He again threatened her that in case she raised cries, she would be stabbed to death. Before the crack of dawn the three accused took her out from the room. Accused Jamal also relieved her silver ornaments Dodiya. The appellants then asked her to accompany them While she was going with them, she found PW 1 Surajmal and PW 2 Srawan at the crossing of the roads. Smt. Roopa raised an alarm. The accused fled away. She narrated the incident to these two witnesses. PW 1 Surajmal went to Police Station, Pender and presented written report Ex P 1 at about 10.00 a.m. on September 13, 1976. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation, Smt. Roopa was got medically examined. The appellants were arrested and in consequence of the information furnished by accused Jamal, one knife and silver ornaments Doodiya were recovered. On the completion of investigation the police presented a challan against the three accused persons in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Jahajpur, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional1 Sessions Judge. He framed charges under Sections 366, 376 and 384, IPC against accused Jarnal and under Section 366, IPC against the remaining two accused Soraj and Ladu, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the. accused examined one witness. The defence taken by them was that one Banna Gujar filed a complaint against the Investigating Officer Mangi Lal (PW 6) and the Police Constable Mithulal for offences under Sections 323, 448 and 330 IPC. Accused Ladu, and, the father of accused Jamal namely Mangi Lal appeared as witnesses in that case. Annoyed with this, the Investigating Officer Mangi Lal engineered this false charge against them On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no substance in the defence version. On an analysis of the prosecution evidence, he held the charge under Section, 376, IPC not, proved. He, however, held the appellants guilty under Section 365 or 365/109 and, accused Jarnal further under Section 384, IPC. They were consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out -side.

(3.) WHEN the appeal of the accused was admitted September 28, 1977, notice was issued to accused Jarnal as to why he should not be convicted also under Section 376 IPC and why the punishment awarded to him under Section 365, IPC be not enhanced.