YAD RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) `p' (name with held by us) a married lady of 30 years was gang raped by Yad Ram and Natthu Ram, appellants herein, who were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 29, 2007, convicted and sentenced each of them under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/- in default to further suffer two years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this: P along with her small child aged four years had come to her Peehar (parental house) Nangdiwas. On December 21, 2006 she left Peehar with her nephew Ranveer (P. W. 17 ). THEy came to Bus-stand Kotputli in a Jogad (local made vehicle ). From Kotputli P wanted to go to her Sasural (in-laws house) Dhanwas. In the afternoon while they were waiting for the Bus to go to Dhanwas, Natthu came to them and asked as to why they were standing. Ranveer told him that he came to see off his Bhua (father's sister) who was going to her Sasural Dhanwas. Natthu then immediately said that he was also going in the jeep to Dhanwas and he would drop P there. Jeep No. RJ-14c-1085 was standing at Bus Stand and Yad Ram was sitting in the jeep. P along with her child and baggage boarded the jeep. But Natthu and Yad Ram on the pretext to leave P to Dhanwas took her to some other lonely destination in the forests of Kharkadi and committed rape on her. She somehow came back to her Peehar and informed about the incident. On December 22, 2006 her brother Ram Karan (P. W. 14) submitted a written report (Ex. P-14) at Police Station Kotputli. On that report case under Sections 376/511 and 379 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur. Charge under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the accused claimed innocence. One witnesses in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge considered the testimony of P sufficient to prove guilt and convicted the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) P denied this suggestion that her husband and brother demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the appellants to enter into compromise. After jumping from the jeep she did not narrate the incident to the persons gathered there because Nathu and Yadram had threatened to kill her son.