DATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated October 7, 2005 of Sessions Judge, Bundi whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC for 8 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376(1) IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Ramdulari along with her husband Mahaveer and brother Sobhag lodged an FIRNo. 252/2004 dated June 25, 2004 at Police Station Keshoraipatan, district Bundi at about 6.20 p.m. alleging that in the morning when the prosecutrix had gone to the field of Shambhu Singh to collect mustered leaves, at about 10-11 a.m. when she had gone to wash her hands at 'Khal' (dry area of river) Datar Singh son of Sheoji Singh came there and committed rape upon her. It was further alleged that after committing rape, when Datar was running away then she saw her brother-in- law Girdhari coming over there, on seeing him she cried that Datar Singh raped her. Immediately, her brother-in-law caught Datar Singh and beat him but he somehow ran away. It was alleged that she came to her house with her brother-in-law. At that time, her husband was not in the house. He has gone out to take medical treatment in the village. It was alleged that her brother-in- law (jeth) Bhanwar Lal came with her at village Thikaria Kalan which was her parental place later on her husband also reached there. It was further alleged that she told about the incident to her husband, her mother Ganga Bai, sister-in-law Mangli Bai and brother Sobhag. She also stated that she came there with her husband and brother to lodge the complaint against the accused. Upon this statement an FIR under section 376 IPC and section 3(2)(v) of Prevention of Atrocities (SC and ST) Act was registered and investigation was started. The trial Court framed charge under Section 376 IPC and section 3(2)(v) of Prevention of Atrocities (SC and ST) Act 1989 against the accused appellant. The appellant denied the charges and desired trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The accused appellant in defence exhibited documents Ex. D.1 statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and Police statements Ex. D.2. The statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the Sessions Judge Bundi vide its judgment dated October 7, 2005 acquitted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Prevention of Atrocities (SC & ST) Act but convicted the accused appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced for eight years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine he was further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment of fifteen days. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(3.) Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that the trial Court committed a gross error of law in convicting the accused appellant. Not a single witness was able to establish a case as against the accused appellant. Not a single witness was an eye witness except the complainant. All the witnesses are the relatives of the complainant and no witness is an independent witness and in such circumstances their testimony cannot be said to be creditworthy and the accused appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of their statements. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the FIR lodged by the complainant was a false complaint. There was arch rivalry between the families of the complainant and the accused appellant and for the same the accused appellant was falsely implicated in the case. The Court below also failed to appreciate the statement of PW.3 Bhanwar Lal who is brother in law of Ramdulari. In his statement, Bhanwar Lal and stated that he was in the field at the relevant point of time and nothing happened before him. He stated that Girdhari, who is his younger brother told nothing about Ramdulari. He also stated that Police did not seize bangles in his presence while police took his thumb impression on Ex. P.3. The police did not seize her skirt and underwear in his presence but took his thumb impression on Ex. P.4. The trial Court failed to appreciate that there was a money dispute between the families of accused appellant and the complainant. The father in law of the complainant Nathu took some money from one of the family members of the accused and when they asked about their money to return back then the quarrel took place between them and lodged this false FIR. The prosecutrix herself stated in her statements that one of her relatives has caught hold of the accused just after the incident but for no reason the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay. The delay in lodging the FIR without any satisfactory explanation in itself makes the entire story to be untrustworthy. As such the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused appellant.