Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2121 (RAJ)

Parmeshwar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-10

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 374, Cr.RC. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.4.2000 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1998 State v. Parmeshwariai , whereby the accused-Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.3.98 at 2 PM complainant Chandra Ram submitted a written report at Police Station Ratangarh, inter-alia, stating therein that on the previous day his daughter had come to deliver meals to him at the field situated in Phrasha Ki Rohi where he was looking after the crops by staying there, and in the evening while returning back with the heard she reached near the field of Narayandan, accused Parmeshwar resident of Charanwasi came near to her and suddenly catching hold of her forcibly took her aside and made her to fall which resulted in breakage of the pots kept in Kharala, which she was carrying, and he committed rape on her. It was further stated in the report that on being rebuked by Pemaram, Bhanwarlal and Kumbharam, who were coming from the side of Kusumdesar, the accused hearing their shouts ran away. Pemaram and Bhanwarlal left his daughter at the house and when he was informed by his son in the night, he came to the village then his daughter and wife told him the entire story. When in the morning the spot was shown to Baijaram Brahmin, Baijaram Jat, Baluram and others, then they found the broken pots and mantilla of his daughter on one side and muffler of accused Parmeshwar also there. Parmeshwar was called but he refused to come. It was also stated that as in the morning the site was shown to the chief persons of the village, it caused delay in submitting the report. 3. On the aforesaid report, Ex.P/5, First information Report No. 49 of 1998 under Section 376 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 4. Parmeshwar was called but he refused to come. It was also stated that as in the morning the site was shown to the chief persons of the village, it caused delay in submitting the report. 3. On the aforesaid report, Ex.P/5, First information Report No. 49 of 1998 under Section 376 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 4. After completion of investigation, challan under Section 376 IPC against accused-Appellant Parmeshwar was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately came for trial and disposal before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, who after taking cognizance registered the case. Charge against appellant Parmeshwar was framed under Section 376 IPC and read over to him, which he denied and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced several documents in evidence. The accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. He produced no evidence in defence. 6. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellant as indicated hereinabove. 7. Heard learned counsel for accused-Appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully scrutinised the material available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that the judgment under appeal is not sustainable as it is against the evidence and material on record. According to him the learned Court below was not right in placing reliance on the version of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that in this case the report of the alleged incident was lodged with a delay of more than 19 hours and the Kharia was not recovered in this case. He also submitted that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses particularly in the statements of PW 1 Bhanwarlal and PW 7 Pemaram, who belong to same community and are interested relative witnesses. According to him even from medical evidence no case is made out against the accused-Appellant and the appellant on account of one dispute relating to a 'Bara' with the father of the prosecutrix, he has been involved in the case. According to him even from medical evidence no case is made out against the accused-Appellant and the appellant on account of one dispute relating to a 'Bara' with the father of the prosecutrix, he has been involved in the case. Alternatively, he prayed that as out of the 7 years' imprisonment awarded by learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 376 IPC he has already remained in custody for a period of about 6 years and 6 months, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in this matter and this sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the Trial Court and contended that there is no inconsistency in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and no interference is called for by this Court in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge which is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 10. I have considered the submissions made before me and have also carefully gone through the evidence led by the prosecution in this case. 11. The point which requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the prosecution story as put forward is trustworthy and whether the statement of prosecutrix PW 9 Mst. Meera inspires confidence? 12. The prosecutrix in her statement has stated that on the day of incident while she was coming from the field and reached near Narayan's field, accused came from behind and pushed her due to which she fell down. She has also stated that she was having a basket on her head containing some utensils which also fell down, and thereafter the accused forcibly took her into the left side, poured sand in her mouth and lifted her petticoat (Ghaghara). Accused pulled the underwear of the prosecutrix, himself became nacked and forcibly committed intercourse for 5 to 7 minutes with her. When she made hue and cry then Pema Ram came there and accused ran away. Nothing has come in the cross examination to suggest that she was making a false statement or she was falsely implicating the accused. PW 6 Dr. Mohd. Farooq examined the prosecutrix and found injury on the right cheek of the prosecutrix. When she made hue and cry then Pema Ram came there and accused ran away. Nothing has come in the cross examination to suggest that she was making a false statement or she was falsely implicating the accused. PW 6 Dr. Mohd. Farooq examined the prosecutrix and found injury on the right cheek of the prosecutrix. He also found the age of the prosecutrix not less than 25 years. 13. In the above circumstances, even leaving aside the evidence of other witnesses on record, when the statement of the prosecutrix finds corroboration by the medical evidence and the suggestion made on behalf of the accused-Appellant that the intercourse took place with the consent has been emphatically denied by the prosecutrix, there is no hesitation on reaching to the conclusion that incident, as alleged by the prosecution, is reliable. 14. The only point in the above circumstances remains to be examined is as to whether prosecutrix was a consenting party but a careful scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix nowhere suggests that she was a consenting party. 15. In view of the above, I find that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charges levelled against the accused by cogent evidence brought on record. The learned Trial Court after discussing the evidence detail has rightly arrived at his conclusion. In recording conviction, the learned Trial Court relied on the testimony of the witnesses, however, the contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses were found of minor nature and the Trial Court was of the opinion that a woman would not make an allegation of rape against a person giving disrepute to herself in the society without any rhyme and reason. 16. The evidence, which has come on record in the case, is clearly suggestive of the fact that for the incident the accused appellant was the only person responsible and the learned trial Court has rightly found the accused-Appellant liable to be convicted under Section 376 IPC. 17. 16. The evidence, which has come on record in the case, is clearly suggestive of the fact that for the incident the accused appellant was the only person responsible and the learned trial Court has rightly found the accused-Appellant liable to be convicted under Section 376 IPC. 17. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially the prayer made by the learned counsel alternatively, and more so when the accused out of the period of seven years' sentence awarded has already remained in custody for a period of about 6 years and 6 months, I deem it proper that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded to the accused-Appellant by the learned Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone. 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Parmeshwar is partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 376 IPC, the sentence awarded is reduced to the period already suffered by him. To that extent the order of learned Trial Court stands modified. accused-Appellant is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required for any other investigation, proceeding or trial.Appeal Partly allowed. *******