SULTAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 30th Apr,, 1986, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota, by which, all the appellants, except appellant Peer Ali, have been found guilty of offence u/s. 376 (2) I. P. C; appellant Peer Ali u/s. 376/109, I. P. C; and all of them have been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) A challan was filed by the police against 8 persons. After trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted accused Mohan Singh of the charges levelled against him and convicted the remaining 7 accused persons. Accused Sultan, Ram prasad, Peer Ali alias Peeru and Kanwar has preferred Appeal No. 266/86, whereas accused-appellants Jagdish Ratley, Babi and Jaikishan have preferred Appeal No. 268/86.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor argued that on account of fear, Omprakash did not dare report the matter in the police. This is no argument. Can a person tolerate that his wife would be taken out of cinema-hall at. knife-' point by some Goondas, and knowingly that some mis happening would be there to his wife, he would not bother to save her chastity and life ? Was it a matter of fear ? Such an argument does not appeal any sensible person. I see no reason why Omprakash would keep silent and would continue sitting in the cinema-hall knowing that some offence might be going to be committed with his wife outside the hall. This conduct itself shows that from the very beginning, the true fact has been kept in the dark and not brought before the Court. It is revealed from the record of the case that from the very beginning, the police wanted to make out a case entangling some persons as miscreants, and in that attempt, they not only set out a false case, but also, they failed to discharge their duties. If this sort of police officers are- there in the police department, then, may the God. save this department. No doubt, something must have happened to Mst. Shyamvati; it cannot be said that she was hot at all raped by somebody. THE argument that a lady would not say anything about her character or losing her chastity of of her being raped by some persons, is also no argument. No doubt, a lady would feel shy, but, such a lady as in this case, who can manipulate such an offence, in such a manner, and that too, at the hands of some persons, cannot and should not be believed at all. Solitary state-ment of a prosecutrix can be taken into consideration or be relied for convicting a person, but that statement should be of sterling worth. If we look into the statement of Mst. Shyamvati and the FIR, we find that there is defference. THEre is nothing in the FIR (Ex. P. 1) that after taking her from the cinema-hall whether she was taken to the lavatory or on the verandah, where the two persons had committed rape on her and that then she was taken behind the bushes, where 8 persons committed rape on her. This is a statement which the prosecutrix gave in the court, which finds no place in the report (Ex. P. 1 ). So, this was the character of the lady. Is it justifiable to believe the statement of such a lady ? to convict a person on her solitary testimony ?