GOPAL @ SUKHPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By his judgment dated May 31, 1988, the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur convicted the accused Gopal alias Sukhpal under section 302 & 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo 6 month's rigorous imprisonment on the first count and 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo four month's like imprisonment. The accused has come up in appeal and challenge his conviction.

(2.) Briefly summed-up, the prosecution case is that the deceased victim Kanchan aged about 11 or 12 years at the time of the incident was the sister of PW 1 Hanuman resident of Sambhar, Distt.-Jaipur. As usual, Kanchan took the goats for grazzing to her filed situate near the railway crossing gate in the morning on 12-7-1985. PW 1 Hanuman was then working in Sambhar Salts. His younger brother Phool Chand (PW 3) went to the field and found the goats grazzing there. A 'Kucha Ghar' is situate in the field. Phool Chand did not find her sister Kanchan and found Kanchan lying dead therein. Blood was oozing out from her mouth and nostrils. He rushed to his brother Hanuman and apprised him of what he had seen. Hanuman collected many persons and took them to the 'Kucha Ghar' situate on the field. They all saw Kanchan lying dead with blood oozing out from her mouth and nostrils. Her Saree was found tied around her neck. They noticed some foot-prints in the field. They followed the foot-prints and proceeded further. The foot-prints took them all to the house of the appellant. Hanuman went to police station Sambhar Lake and verbally lodged report Ex. P. 1 of the incident at about 3.00 P.M. The police registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. The Investigating Officer Mohan Lal (PW 14) arrived on the spot, inspected the site, prepared the site plan and the inquest report of the victim's dead body. He lifted the blood stained soil from there. He also got the photographs of the foot prints prepared. The Investigating Officer lifted the foot-prints found near about the place of incident by preparing the moulds. The accused was arrested on that very day. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted on 14-7-1985 by PW 10 Dr. Tiwari the then Medical Officer Incharge, Govt. Hospital, Sambhar. The Doctor noticed as many as 18 external injuries as mentioned in the post mortem examination report Ex.P. 17. The Doctor also noticed the vagina bleeding and the hymen teared and ruptured. The injuries were ante-mortem. The Doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death of Kanchan was asphyxia due to strangulation. He was also of the opinion that Kanchan was raped before her death and she had put resistance and struggle before death.

(3.) The medical examination of the accused was conducted on 12-7-1985 soon after his arrest. The report of his examination is Ex.P.16. No injuries or marks of struggle were found on his person including the penis. The Doctor, therefore, could not express any opinion whether the accused had performed the act of sexual intercourse within 12 hours preceding his medical examination. After when the specimen of the accused's foot-prints were taken, the chance foot-prints found on the spot and the specimen footprints of the accused were sent for scientific examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur. They were found similar and identical with one another. On the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a crime report against the appellant in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges U/ss. 302 & 376 Penal Code against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined one witness. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge held both the charges duly brought home to the accused. He was of the opinion that the rape and murder were committed in a single transaction and they were the integral parts of each other. The appellant was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. Aggrieved against his conviction, the accused has taken this appeal.