Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1132 (RAJ)

Dhanna Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-10

N.K.JAIN

body2006
Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-This appeal, on behalf of accused Dhanna Lal son of Shri Bajrang Lal; under Section 374(2), CrPC is directed against the Judgment and order dated 15.06.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Court, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 80/1998, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment to fine, to further undergo one months simple imprisonment.. 2. Exhibit P-7, the written report, was lodged by PW. 8 Suraj Mal at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota wherein it was alleged that on 13.07.1998 he was going to leave her sister-in-law Shakuntala on cycle and when he was passing through DCM area the rain started and to rescue themselves they went in the vacant quarters situated nearby the road. It was further stated that five persons were present there, and they caught hold of his sister-in-law Shakuntala. Out of five, he disclosed the names of two miscreants as Dhanna Lal Harijan and Bahadur Singh. He was not knowing the name of remaining persons. These persons started beating with them. Thereafter Dhanna Lal took Shakuntala in another vacant quarter and committed rape with her. The other four persons caught hold of him. After committing sexual intercourse by Dhanna Lal, another accused-person Bahadur Singh committed rape with her. On the basis of this information a case under Sections 376, 354 and 342, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. The site-plan (Exhibit P-9) was prepared. The undergarments and other clothes of victim were seized vide Exhibit P-10. The underwear of accused Dhanna Lal was also seized vide Exhibit P-11. The accused-appellant was arrested on 14.07.1998. Exhibit P-1 is the medical report of accused Dhanna Lal wherein it was opined that he was capable of doing sexual intercourse. Exhibit P-2 is the medical-report in respect of age of and rape upon victim Shakuntala wherein it was opined that no definite opinion can be given about forcibly sexual intercourse. However vaginal swab were taken and sent for chemical analysis. As per Exhibit P-3, the X-ray report of victim, it was opined that she was in between 17 to 19 years of age. However vaginal swab were taken and sent for chemical analysis. As per Exhibit P-3, the X-ray report of victim, it was opined that she was in between 17 to 19 years of age. After completion of investigation the police filed challan against five accused-persons, namely, Dhanna Lal, Babloo, Khanoo, Bahadur Singh and Yogendra Nath, under Sections 342, 354 and 376, IPC read with Section 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4 (North), Kota, who committed the case for trial. The learned trial Court framed charge against accused Dhanna Lal and Bahadur Singh under Sections 376 (g) and 342 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and against the accused Khanoo, Yogendra Nath and Babloo under Section 376 (g) read with Section 34 and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 354 of the IPC, 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 342, IPC. The accused-persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused-persons were recorded under Section 313, CrPC wherein they stated that prosecution evidence is false. 3. It is relevant to mention that during trial co-accused Bahadur Singh and Yogendra Nath did not make themselves present, therefore, they were declared absconded and, as such, the learned trial Court heard the arguments on behalf of remaining three accused-persons, namely, Dhanna Lal, Babloo and Khanoo and vide its Judgment dated 15.06.2005, impugned in this appeal, acquitted two co-accused persons, namely, Babloo and Khanoo and, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the same, the accused-appellant has sent this appeal from Jail. 4. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant contended that there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report. he contended that the incident took place at about 12.00 noon on 13.07.1998 whereas the report was lodged at 3.30 PM i.e, after the delay of about three-and-half hour whereas the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was only two kilometers, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case as the same has not been explained properly. He further contended that the seizure-memo of clothes and undergarments of victim is not proved as the independent witness PW. He further contended that the seizure-memo of clothes and undergarments of victim is not proved as the independent witness PW. 7 Rajendra Kumar was declared hostile. He also contended that the complainant PW. 8 Suraj mal stated that he was eye-witness to the incidence, whereas the victim Shakuntala stated, in her statement before the Court, that he had gone from the place of occurrence, therefore, as per the statement of victim Shakuntala, the complainant was not the eye-witness and the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated with the statement of any other witness in the present case. He also referred the medical report whereby no injury was found on the person of victim and there was no specific report about forcibly committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He also tried to comment on the statement of the prosecutrix PW. 9 Shakuntala pointing out certain contradictions and on that basis he submitted that her statement is not reliable and in these circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts and thus he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 5. The learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the finding of the learned trial Court is based on appreciation of evidence and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant in it. He contended that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained which is clear from the contents of the FIR itself . The reason for this delay given is that at that time the rain started and, therefore, slight delay occurred in lodging the FIR, which cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. He also contended that two accused-persons, namely, Yogendra Nath and Bahadur Singh were arrested on the spot itself . Exhibit P-23, the FSL report, was also referred wherein it was mentioned that human semen was found on the articles. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and minutely scanned the impugned Judgment as well as the record of the trial Court. 7. PW. 8 Suraj Mal, the brother-in-law of victim has stated before the Court that he was going to leave her sister-in-law Shakuntala to her house but due to rain they took shelter in the vacant quarters situated nearby road and there the accused-persons, caught hold of them. 7. PW. 8 Suraj Mal, the brother-in-law of victim has stated before the Court that he was going to leave her sister-in-law Shakuntala to her house but due to rain they took shelter in the vacant quarters situated nearby road and there the accused-persons, caught hold of them. Accused Dhanna Lal committed sexual intercourse with Shakuntala. Thereafter accused Bahadur Singh also committed sexual intercourse with her. He also stated that he was caught hold of by other co-accused-persons Babloo and Khanoo during the period the other accused-persons were forcibly committing sexual intercourse with the victim. Thereafter he ran away and lodged the report. The police personnels came at the spot and on their intervention his sister-in-;aw Shakuntala could be got free from the custody of the accused-persons. The accused Yogendra Nath and Bahadur Singh were arrested from the spot itself . 8. Prosecutrix PW. 9 Shakuntala has also stated in her statement before the Court that out of five, two persons committed sexual intercourse with her. She identified accused Dhanna Lal and Bahadur Singh in the Court and stated that these two persons committee sexual intercourse with her. She also stated that accused Dhanna Lal, Bahadur Singh and Yogendra Nath gave beating on her person as well as on the person of her brother-in-law. There was a long cross-examination with PW. 9 Shakuntala but nothing could come on the record that accused did not commit the sexual intercourse with her or she implicated them falsely. 9. Exhibit P-1 is the medical-report of accused Dhanna Lal wherein it was opined that he was capable of doing sexual intercourse. The site-plan, the seizure-memo of garments of Shakuntala, the seizure-memo of underwear of accused Dhanna Lal, are proved from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW. 2 Sanjeev Kumar and PW. 5 Jagdish Prasad Yadav are the Investigating Officers in the present case, who have also proved the prosecution case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The statements of PW. 8 Suraj Mal and PW. 9 Shakuntala have been scrutinized in detail and a reading of their statements prove the charge against accused-appellant and there appears no reason to discard their statements. From the statement of PW. 9 Shakuntala it is clear that the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. From her cross-examination there appears no reason of falsely implicating the accused by the prosecutrix. From the statement of PW. 9 Shakuntala it is clear that the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. From her cross-examination there appears no reason of falsely implicating the accused by the prosecutrix. The contradictions pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant in the statement of PW. 9 Shakuntala cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. However, there is no contradiction in her statement so far committing sexual intercourse with her by the accused is concerned. 10. I have considered the finding of the learned trial Court and find that it has examined and appreciated the evidence of the prosecution, in detail, and has rightly recorded a finding that accused has committed the offence for which he has been charged. 11. In view of the above discussion I do not find any force in any of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. 12. Resultantly I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.