MOHAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for having committed an offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to three and half years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further two months' rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under section 45, Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further one month's rigorous imprisonment with the direction that both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the appellant used to visit the house of Shanker (P. W. 2). On 30-3-1972 at about 2 P. M. as usual, the appellant went to the house of Shanker. He found Karali, engaged in some domestic work. He found that no one was in the house except Kamli and, therefore, he committed rape on her. She cried and on hearing her cry, Kesha (P. W. 3) and Deva (P. W. 4) uncle and cousin of Kamli who were accidently going that way came near the house. They found the appellant running away. They attempted to catch him but he escaped. Kamli narrated the incident to these two persons. They kept quite. In the evening Shanker came to his house. Kamli told him about the incident. Shanker also kept quiet that night. On 1-4-1972 Shanker went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint (Ex. P. 1). On that day Dr. Mansingh (P. W. 7) who was on duty examined Kamli and found laceration of hymen. He also noticed reddishness in her private part. He took smear and Petticoat of Kamli and and sent them to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner was negative for Semen & Spermatozoa. There were the facts on the basis of which the prosecution sought to establish a charge of rape against the appellant.

(3.) The main evidence on which the prosecution sought to establish the charge was on the evidence of Kamli. The prosecution sought to adduce corroborative evidence in support of the story of Kamli by the evidence of Kesha (P. W. 3) and Deva (P. W. 4) who came to the scene of the occurrence hearing the noise to whom Kamli made a statement that the appellant was the person who committed rape on her. Shanker father of Kamli who came in the evening was also examined to corroborate Kamli.