MOOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner by his judgment dated 17-11-1998 convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to 7 years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. By this appeal accused-appellant has assailed his conviction.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix PW-3 Jasoda along with her father PW-1 Shivlal came to police station Kolayat on 17-4-1997 and reported that on 16-4-1997 her father Shivlal and her mother PW-2 Chuki along with her younger brothers had gone to the temple of Bheruji. Jasoda and her younger sister Santu were the only inhabitants in the house. There was a shop of grocery adjacent to house which was being carried on by her father and which was also being looked after by her in absence of her father. At about 1.00 p.m. on 16-4-1997 accused-appellant came there in absence of her younger sister Santu who had gone to the neighbouring ladies. Accused-appellant asked Jasoda for certain items which she started to weigh. The accused-appellant entered into the shop, closed its door from inside, threw Jasoda on the ground, over-turned her lehanga, opened his pant and then committed rape. Jasoda started weeping as soon as accused-appellant put his male organ in her vagina. She had started bleeding per vagina and her lehanga had stains of blood. Accused-appellant went away after committing rape. When her aunty Smt. Sharda came back from the village, Jasoda narrated her the story and when her parents returned at 5.00 p.m. they were also told about the incident. Moola Ram then went to search out the accused but he was not available and then the matter was reported to the police. During investigation Jasoda was examined for age as well as for sexual intercourse. Site was inspected by the Investigating Officer, statements of witnesses were recorded and ultimately challan was submitted. The accused-appellant was tried for offence under Section 376, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 16 years and that her father and mother have not supported the story. He also submitted that the report of the doctors that the age of the girl was below 16 years and that the sexual intercourse was committed with her, should not be believed. He submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated and deserves acquittal.