KHAYALI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.5.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the accused appellant of offence under Sec. 450 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo 2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months R.I. The appellant has also been convicted of offence under Sec. 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months R.I. and under Sec. 323 I.P.C. sentenced to undergo 2 months R.I.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 25.8.80 PW/1 Shri Hemaram lodged a F.I.R. at Police Station Sri Karanpur stating interalia that he alongwith his children resides in village Govindgarh Manjhiwal. On 24.8.80 he had gone out, leaving his wife and daughter PW/2 Mst. Gomti at the residence. His mother lives separately. He returned in the evening from village Arayan. At that time, his mother PW/4 Gaura told him that yesterday in the afternoon at about 11 a.m. his wife Sajna and his younger daughter had gone to the filed. His daughter Mst. Gomti aged 10 years was at the residence. At that time at about 12 p.m. she and PW/3 the wife of Bholuram Guddi opened the door and heard the cries of Mst, Gomti. They found that the accused Khaliram had caught the hand of Mst. Gomti and she was laid down on the cot. On hearing cries, Guniram and Shyonarayan also arrived on the spot. The accused leaving Mst. Gomti ran away. Mst. Gomti disclosed to her mother that Khaliram had entered in the house and caught her hand and with intention to commit rape, threw her on the cot. In the evening at about 7 p.m. he alongwith his mother went to reprimand Khaliram, on which, he became annoyed and gave a lathi blow on him. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under Sec. 450, 354 & 323 I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. Hemaram was medically examined on the same day. Two abrasions on the left tempro region were found. Both the injuries were simple in nature, caused by blunt object. After usual investigation, Police laid the charge-sheet against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The accused appellant in his statement under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. stated that the entire evidence against him is false. He also stated that Hemaram demanded Rs. 200.00 and as he has not given money to him, a false case has been concocted against him. The trial court found the prosecution case proved and convicted the accused appellant as stated above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Ramesh Purohit. PW/1 Hemaram has narrated the incident as given in the F.I.R. PW/2 Mst. Gomti has stated that at about 12 p.m. the accused Khaliram had entered in the house and tied cloth on her eyes. She was forcibly laid down on the cot and the accused tried to untie cord of her 'Salwar'. Her grand mother and mother arrived on the spot. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know Khaliram pjior to the date of incident. It was PW/3 Guddi who told her that name of the accused appellant was Khaliram. PW/3 Guddi has stated that she heard cry from the house of Hemaram and, therefore, she rushed to the house and entered therein and found that the accused Khaliram had forcibly laid down Mst. Gomti on the cot and had untied the cord of her salwar. She also made a cry on which, grand mother of Mst. Gomti arrived on the spot. Two more persons of the village also came there. The accused Khaliram ran away. In the cross-examination she made it clear that she identified the accused Khaliram as she was knowing him prior to the date of incident. She also stated that the accused used to visit them and, therefore, she knew him. The statement of PW/4 is almost same. PW/5 Guniram has stated that hearing cry from the house of Hemaram, he rushed to his house and found that the accused Khaliram was trying to sexualy assault Mst. Gomti. PW/3 Guddi & PW/4 Goura disclosed that the accused Khaliram was 'trying to commit rape on Mst. Gomti. PW/6 Surjaram has stated that the accused Khaliram gave a lathi blow on the head of Hemaram. PW/8 Dr. M.R Aggarwal has stated that he examined Hemaram on 25.8.80 and found two abrasions on his skull. Both the injuries were simple, caused by blunt object. On analysis of the evidence, it clearly appears that the accused appellant had forcibly laid down Mst. Gomti and thereafter, untied the cord of her salwar and has outraged her modesty. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offence against the appellant punishable under Sec. 354 I.P.C. The appellant caused simple injury by blund object and therefore, the case punishable of offence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. is also made out. So far as the Sec. 450 I.P.C. is concerned, the conviction of the appellant under the said section is not sustainable for the simple reason that the offence under Sec. 356, 456 and 323 I.P.C. is not punishable with life imprisonment. The essential ingredients of offence under section 450 I.P.C. is : House trespass, to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment. However, there is a evidence that the accused had entered in the house in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. He is liable to be convicted of offence under Sec. 451 I.P.C.