DILIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31. 7. 85 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 376 and 457 of Indian Penal Code (`ipc' for short ). For offence under Section 376 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 457 IPC, he has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that for an incident that allegedly took place on 10. 3. 84, the prosecutrix (PW. 1) lodged a written report at Police Station Pilani on 14. 3. 84 wherein she claimed "that her husband is serving in the Army. She lives alone with her two children in her farm. Her father-in-law and her uncle-in-law both live near her house. On Saturday, the 10th of March, 1984, while she was sleeping in her room, after having bolted the door from inside, around 11. 30 p. m. , someone sat on her chest and closed her mouth. He lifted her `lehanga' (petticoat ). The man started having sexual intercourse with her against her wish. When she tried to scream, he put his hand on her mouth. As soon as man was finished with her, she shouted for help. IN the light, which was on in the room, she noticed that the man was Dilip Singh S/o Godha Ram. She pushed him and she started shouting. Dilip Singh got up and started running. When he was about to run off, she caught hold of his sweater. The sweater came off and Dilip Singh ran away. At that time, Hari Singh Chamar, Basti Ram, Munni and Rajendra came to her rescue. They tried to catch hold of Dilip Singh, but they could not succeed. She, therefore, sent her brother-in-law to fetch her father-in-law. He father-in-law told them to send a telegram to her husband and to ask him to come immediately. " On the basis of this report a formal FIR, FIR No. 19/84 was chalked out for offence under Section 376 IPC. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested on 20. 3. 84. The appellant was charged for offence under Section 376 and 457 IPC. IN order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted ten documents. The defence examined two witnesses and submitted a few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, the offence of rape is a dasteredly act not only against the victim, but also the society at large. Unquestionably the offence leaves the victim psychologically scared and emotionally shattered. But, the conviction in a criminal case cannot be based on the heinousness of the crime. A conviction has to be based on the objective assessment of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The objectivity of a judicious mind cannot be blinded by the fact that the prosecutrix alleges that her honour has been defiled. Thus, while examining the evidence, a holistic view of the evidence is essential.