LABH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Labh Chand has been convicted under sections 392 and 342 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu by his Judgment dated 16. 3. 79. He has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one thousand (Rs. 1,000/-) under the first count and to 6 months R. I. under the second count. He has, therefore, come up in appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution story briefly stated is that Smt. Manju wife of Chhotulal, aged about 19 years had come to her father-in-law's place from her father's place at about 8. 00 P. M on 7. 11. 1977. On this her mother in - law rebuked her and told her that she should not have come at that time of twilight, Manju got annoyed and after cleaning the utensils left her father-in-law's house and went towards Gandhi Vidhya Mandir. On this Babulal, elder brother of her husband went in search of Manju and one Noorekhan Chowkidar who met him at the Gandhi Vidhya Mandir told him that he had seen some people forcibly putting a woman on a truck and the woman was crying. He also told him that the truck had gone towards Ganganagar. On receiving this information Babulal went to Police Station Sardarsahar and lodged a report in this respect In that report he also mentioned that Smt. Manju was wearing a gold locket stand with white and red pearls and she had also golden ring in one hand and a silver ring in the other. He also expressed his fear in that report that 'truckwala' had taken away Manju with the intention of having forcible intercourse with her. On this police registered a case under section 366 I. P. C, and started investigations. This report was lodged at about 11. 30 in the night, the police set out in search of the accused as also Smt. Manju. However it appears that Smt. Manju was made to a light from the truck on the way and she returned to her father's house in the night but she does not appear to have informed of this incident to any one at her father's house nor to the Chhakarewala (camel cart driver) in whose cart she had returned to her father's place. According to the case of the prosecution the police came across one Laxmansingh from whom they came to know that the present accused Labh Chand as well as Ram Ratan and Prithviraj alias Vijay were the persons who had taken Smt. Manju forcibly in the truck and. that Labh Chand had forcibly snatched the gold locket and silver and gold rings from Smt. Manju. In pursuance of this information the police further went in search of these persons and arrested Ram Ratan, Prithviraj alias Vijay and Labh Chand. Labh Chand was arrested on 8. 11. 77 at Hanumangarh and at the time of his arrest he was found to be wearing the gold and silver rings belonging to Smt. Manju and was also carrying her locket in the pocket of his pant. THEse ornaments were, therefore, taken possession of by the police. It further, appears that Smt. Manju was examined by the police on 9. 11. 77 and Smt: Manjn and some of the accused persons were subjected to a medical examination in order to find out whether Smt. Manju had been subjected to sexual intercourse. After completion of the investigations in which the accused were also put up for identification so also the ornaments recovered from Labh Chand, a challan was put up against 3 persons namely Labh Chand, Ram Ratan and Prithviraj alias Vijay. Vijay absconded while the matter was pending before the learned Sessions Judge where it was committed. Charges u/sections 366, 392/ 394 and 342 I. P. C. were framed against Labh Chand and under Sections 366 and 342 against Ram Ratan, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On trial the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, by judgment dated 16. 3. 1979 acquitted Ram Ratan of both the charges but convicted Labh Chand under Sections 392 and 342 I. P. C. and sentenced him as aforesaid, hence this appeal.

(3.) THE statement of Smt. Manju that she had been robbed of these ornaments by Labh Chand after she was forcibly made to board the truck also appears to be highly unreliable and her conduct appears to be most unnatural. In the first place she says that when she reached her father-in-law's house the only conflict with her mother-in-law was on account of the fact that she should not have returned at twilight, she should have either come a little earlier or should have come a little later, such a advice by the mother-in-law could hardly be a reason for Smt. Manju to leave her husband's house. Even if that was so, she would have gone to,her parents house but she did not do so and proceeded towards the Gandhi Vidhya Mandir. Further, when she was near the Gandhi Vidhya Mandir and a truck approached her and she was made to board it by three persons. She does not appear to have put up much resistance otherwise some injuries would certainly have been caused to her. Her medical examination does not disclose any injury on her person. THEn according to the prosecution atleast three persons had seen her being forcibly made to board the truck namely Shri Noorekhan Chowkidar and two other persons who according to Noorekhan had just met him and told him that they had also seen a woman being forcibly taken on the truck but strangely enough none of these three persons appear to have come to the rescue of the helpless woman nor raised any hue or cry. Those two other persons have not been produced. Noorekhan PW. 4 does not say that he went to the Police Station to report the incident seen by him and appears to be content with asking those two strangers to report the matter to the police without caring to know who those two persons were. It was only later when Babulal P. W. 3, the elder brother of Manju's husband came there then he informed him of the incident.