LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-200

RATNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On February 20, 2008
RATNA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 4/5.8.87 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur, Camp Salumber in Sessions Case No.20/86, whereby, he convicted accused appellant - Ratna for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Accused appellant Ratna was also convicted for offence under Section 450 IPC and sentenced to three year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts leading to these appeals are that a private complaint was filed by one Dharma on 6.9.85 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, stating therein that his wife Kamtu was raped by one Ratna son of Nema on 28.8.85 at 12 noon, when she was sleeping in her house. He came to know about this fact on 4.9.85, when Dev Chand came to him and narrated the story at Himmat Nagar, Gujarat, where he went for work. This complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellant Ratna for offence under Sections 376 and 450 IPC. Since, offence under Section 376 IPC was triable by the court of sessions, therefore, the case was committed, where the accused appellant was charged for offence under Section 376 and 450 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. Statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was led in defence.

(3.) After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellant as indicated above. Since, both these appeals are arising out of the same incident, one filed by the accused appellant from jail and another in a regular way, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.