MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed u/s. 374 CR. PC. against the judgment and order dt. 6. 5. 97 made by the Learned Spl. Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Prohibition Cases), Jaipur in Sessions case No. 36/97. By his impugned judgment and order the learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the offences u/ss. 376 (2) (f) IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to R. I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 200/-or in case of default in making payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for one month.

(2.) THE facts relevant and sufficient to dispose of the present appeal are these : PW 2 Ghanshyam alongwith their minor daughter PW 3 Anita aged about 4 years had gone to participate in the marriage function arranged at the house of the elder sister of Smt. Ganga in Mohan Lal Sukhadiya Kachi Basti, Jaipur. It is alleged that the present appellant had also gone there in the said marriage party. THE prosecution case is that at about 11. 00 p. m. when the parents of Anita and other persons were busy in the marriage function, the appellant took-away Anita behind the bushes on some pretext and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that after having given the threatening to Anita that if she narrated the incident to any body, the police would arrest her, he left the girl near a petrol pump.

(3.) MR. Ashwani Chobisa Adv. who was appointed the Amicus-Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant led me through the entire evidence available on the record of the learned trial court and highlighted the fact that the identity of the present appellant, as rapist of Kumari Anita, was not established beyond doubt. The learned Amicus-curiae further submitted that there were material contradictions between the statements of Prahlad Singh S. H. O. , Investigating Officer in this case, on the one hand, and the other prosecution witnesses including PW 2 Ghanshyam-informant on the other. It was submitted that since the identity of the present appellant has not been established beyond doubt, the testimony of Kumari Anita who was a child witness should not be believed and relied upon by this Court.