Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1816 (RAJ)

Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan

2008-07-31

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Both these criminal appeals involve a common question of fact and arises out of a common Judgment, hence same are being decided by this common Judgment. 2. By filing instant criminal appeals under section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellants have challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.1984 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Bundi (for short the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 25/83, whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced each of the accused appellants as under : 3. Three years Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 500/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' Simple Imprisonment. 4. As per the case of the prosecution Mst. Kamla and Sultan submitted a report on 20.12.82 at P.S. Taleda to this effect that the prosecutrix went for labouring in the truck of Gopal Driver and Kailash Khalasi. These persons took prosecutrix to fill in the sand in the truck. Three labours were also with them. After filing up of the sand, these persons left that place. On the way Police Station Taleda caught the truck. The driver of the truck was not having license. In the evening time the owner of the truck came and he got free the truck from the police and vacated the sand from the truck in the forest. The prosecutrix stated these persons that they cannot live in the forest in the night and they should leave them to their house. The contractor, driver and Khalasi had already consumed the wine. These persons proceeded from that place in truck. When the truck reached in the center of Taleda and Kota-Bundi then driver of the truck stopped it and driver and khalasi opened the knife. After that both the accused persons committed rape with them. Thereafter, the accused persons told to the prosecutrix that they should not tell this thing to their family members otherwise, they will kill them. Kailash snatched payjeb of silver along-with Rs. 300/- and these persons left them in the night at 1-2 AM at their house. 5. The police on the basis of this report, registered an FIR for the offence under sections 392 and 376 IPC and started investigation. 6. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences. 300/- and these persons left them in the night at 1-2 AM at their house. 5. The police on the basis of this report, registered an FIR for the offence under sections 392 and 376 IPC and started investigation. 6. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused appellants for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellants for the offence under section 376 IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges, did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 7. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 15 witnesses and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants u/S. 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. 8. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide Judgment 20.10.1984 as mentioned above. 9. The accused appellants being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.1984 passed by learned trial Court, have preferred the aforesaid criminal appeals. 10. Both the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submit that the FIR in the instant case has been lodged after a great delay and no explanation for not lodging the FIR within the time has been given by the prosecution and the delay in such type of cases is fatal to the prosecution. In the FIR there is omission of important facts, thus the statements of the prosecutrix cannot be believed. The statements of the prosecutrix have not been supported by any independent witnesses. Thus, the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.1984 passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 11. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned PP submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. Both the prosecutrix are illiterate and both of them reached at the house at 2.00 AM in the night after the alleged occurrence taken place and on the next day the FIR was lodged against the accused appellants. If a person commits rape with unmarried woman, then such a girl is seen in the society in a bad way and in such type of cases, bad impression lies upon the reputation of a girl. Thus there is no delay on the part of prosecution to lodge an FIR against the accused appellants. If a person commits rape with unmarried woman, then such a girl is seen in the society in a bad way and in such type of cases, bad impression lies upon the reputation of a girl. Thus there is no delay on the part of prosecution to lodge an FIR against the accused appellants. As per the medical reports the age of Mst. Kamla at the time of alleged incident was 16-18 years and age Mst. Sultan at the time of alleged incident was 12-14 years. There is no need to support the evidence of prosecutrix by any independent witnesses because in the offence of rape the prosecutrix does not remain accomplice. As per the medical reports of both the prosecutrix, there are scratches on the persons of prosecutrix. Lastly, he submits that the aforesaid offence committed by the accused appellants is serious one which indirectly affects the whole society. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.1984 passed by learned trial Court. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants as well as learned PP for the State and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 13. A bare perusal of the above evidence clearly reveal that there is no unreasonable delay on the part of complainant to lodge an FIR against the accused appellants. As per the material available on record the age of Mst. Kamla at the time of alleged occurrence was 16-18 years and the age of Mst. Sultan was 12-14 years. In the case of rape there is no need of evidence of any independent witnesses which is to be corroborated by any other evidence. In view of above, the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial Court, in my considered view, requires no modification. 14. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the accused appellants are dismissed and the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.1984 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 25/1983 is maintained. Since the accused appellants are on bail. their bail bonds stand cancelled. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed against the accused appellants in accordance with law.Appeal Dismissed. *******