Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1952 (RAJ)

Meghraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-09-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Meghraj Singh and Bhoop Singh have filed these two appeals against the judgment dated November 17, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur in Sessions Cases No. 30 of 2004 and 22 of 2005 whereby the accused appellant Meghraj Singh was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 376 IPC to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months simple imprisonment, whereas appellant Bhoop Singh was convicted under section 376 read with section 114 IPC and sentenced to suffer 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. It may be mentioned here that both the accused appellants were co-accused in an FIR registered against them and investigation was done against them but accused appellant Bhoop Singh was arrested on 27.12.2003 and accused appellant Meghraj Singh absconded. Trial against Bhoop Singh was completed and thereafter Meghraj Singh was arrested and again trial court recorded the statements of the witnesses. As both the accused appellants were co-accused in the FIR No.361 of 2003, the judgment in both the sessions cases was pronounced only after completion of trial in the case of Meghraj Singh. Both the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced vide combined judgment dated November 17, 2005 as mentioned above.Since the accused appellants were coaccused in an FIR No.361 dated 30.8.2003, both these appeals are being disposed by this common judgment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Virendra Singh lodged a written report on August 30, 2003 at 9.45 a.m. that on August 30, 2003 in the night at 1.45 a.m. when he was sleeping at his residence he heard hue and cries. He immediately rushed to the house of Vijay Singh and found that cries were of Mamta, who is daughter of his uncle from the house of Bhoop Singh. Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh caught hold of Mamta. Other persons were also collected at the residence of Bhoop Singh but Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh ran away from the roof side. He immediately rushed to the house of Vijay Singh and found that cries were of Mamta, who is daughter of his uncle from the house of Bhoop Singh. Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh caught hold of Mamta. Other persons were also collected at the residence of Bhoop Singh but Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh ran away from the roof side. On asking Mamta she stated that when she was sleeping on the roof of her house Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh gaged her mouth with cloth and taken her away to the house of Bhoop Singh where Meghraj Singh raped her and Bhoop Singh facilitated Meghraj Singh to commit rape on her. At that time she was naked and not wearing her Salvar. Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh threatened her not to say to anybody otherwise they will kill her all family members. She stated that they also given beating to her. After investigation, the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate. Challan was filed against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 376 and 376/114 IPC. In Sessions Case No.30 of 2004 charge was framed against Bhoop Singh vide order dated 30.6.2004 for the offence under section 376/ 114 IPC. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW.1 Virendra Singh, PW.2 Bhoodevsingh, PW.3 Maharaj Singh. PW.4 Harnam Singh, PW.5 Smt. Dulari, PW.6 Mamta, PW.7 Dr. Usha Gupta. PW.8 Satyaprakash, PW.9 Hariram, PW.10 Prem Shanker, PW.11 Dr. Vinaykumar Atrey, and PW.12 Lakhansingh Khatana. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused Bhoop singh himself appeared as DW.1 and stated that on 29.8.2003 at 6-7 p.m. Virendra Singh gave beating to Meghraj. Meghraj received injuries. FIR was lodged, which is Ex. P.6. His injuries were examined by the doctor vide Ex. P.7. X-ray was also done which is Ex. P.8. Site map of place of incident was also prepared which is Ex. P.9. In the cross examination, he himself admitted the age of prosecutrix to be 14 years.After arrest of accused Meghraj Singh, the trial court framed charge against him for the offence under section 376 IPC on July 27, 2005. The prosecution in support of its case produced PW.1 Dr. Usha Gupta, PW.2 Hariram, PW.3 Lakhan Singh Khatana, PW.4 Virendra Singh, PW.5 Bhoodev, PW.6 Maharaj Singh, PW.7 Dr. The prosecution in support of its case produced PW.1 Dr. Usha Gupta, PW.2 Hariram, PW.3 Lakhan Singh Khatana, PW.4 Virendra Singh, PW.5 Bhoodev, PW.6 Maharaj Singh, PW.7 Dr. Vinay Kumar Atrey, PW.8 Smt. Dulari, PW.9 Harnam Singh, PW.10 Chandan Singh, PW.11 Mamta and PW.12 Kulraj Singh. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence one Ramsaran was produced.The trial court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the Public Prosecutor vide judgment dated November 17, 2005 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above. 4. Mr. Suresh Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submitted written submissions and prayed that the accused appellants may be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. In the written arguments, the learned counsel stated that the version of the prosecution withsses is very unnatural because of the reason that both the accused appellants are real brothers and it is against the human nature that in presence of elder brother the younger brother could commit rape and more so the elder brother assists the younger brother to commit rape. This version is unnatural and unbelievable. It is unbelievable that the accused appellant Megh Raj taken the prosecutrix in lap and came down by wooden ladder and the prosecutrix who is about 19 years of age did not make any hue and cry. Both the accused appellants are adjacent neighbours of the prosecutrix. The accused appellant Meghraj carryaing a Parchuni shop in the village and the family members of the prosecutrix used to get the goods and articles daily on borrow and when the accused Meghraj demanded the outstanding money then the false story has been concocted by the prosecutrix and her family members to implicate both the brothers. On demand of money, quarrel took place between the accused appellants and the family members of the prosecutrix on 29.8.2003 and accused appellant Meghraj sustained grievous injuries for which he lodged a report at Police Station Kumher. The said case is still pending. Due to this enmity the false report has been lodged. From the medical report the offence alleged against the accused appellant has not been proved. It is clearly revealed from the Medical report Ex. P.7 that there is no evidence of committing rape. No injuries were found on the private parts or on body of the prosecutrix. Apart from it Dr. From the medical report the offence alleged against the accused appellant has not been proved. It is clearly revealed from the Medical report Ex. P.7 that there is no evidence of committing rape. No injuries were found on the private parts or on body of the prosecutrix. Apart from it Dr. Usha Gupta clearly stated on oath that there was no sign of rape and there was no injury on the private parts and body of the prosecutrix. There are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix Mamta recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., and under section 164 Cr.P.c. and in the court statements. There are major and material contradictions in every statement of the prosecutrix. Four time her statements were record and every time she changed her version. As such the statements of the prosecutrix are not trustworthy and the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. It is well settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case the prosecution completely failed to prove the guilt. In defence admission register of the school has been placed before the trial court as Ex. D.10. According to this register the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 3.1.1984 and at the alleged time of occurrence she was of about 19 years of age. Whereas all the prosecution witnesses have stated her age below 16 years. Regarding the age of the prosecutrix the statements of Head Master Ram Sharan Dw.1 recorded before the trial court. But the trial court ignored the material available on record. Against Bhoop Singh there is no charge of committing rape. He is about 65 years of age and there is no bad antecedents. The accused appellant Megh Raj already undergone abut 4 years and two months sentence and the another accused Bhoop Singh also remained in custody for more than one year. Both the accused appellants are having their families and if they are not acquitted from the charges levelled against them then the entire family will be ruined. Learned counsel placed reliance on Mangi Ram @ Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 264 , Shakoor v. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr.L.R 841 and State of Rajasthan v. Jeeya 1983 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 528. 5. Learned counsel placed reliance on Mangi Ram @ Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 264 , Shakoor v. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr.L.R 841 and State of Rajasthan v. Jeeya 1983 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 528. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and argued that the accused appellants Meghraj Singh and Bhoop Singh taken Mamta, who was sleeping at her residence, at the residence of Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh committed rape on Mamta and further they gave beating to Mamta and stated to her that if it is stated to anybody they will kill her all family members. Mamta was found in naked condition in the house of Bhoop Singh. The Salvar and vaginal swab sent to the FSL, confirmed rape committed on her. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. The trial court critically examined the material available on record and judgment of conviction is based on evidence and the accused appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the relevant evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court. 7. In the statement under section 164, the prosecutrix Mamta implicated the appellant Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. Her statement before the court of Judicial Magistrate No.4 Bharatpur was recorded on September 27, 2003 i.e. after one month of the incident. She started her statement before the court that one month before in the night at 1 p.m. she was sleeping at her residence's roof. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and gave beating to her. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and gave beating to her. In the statement she stated as under : ,d ekg igys dh ckr gSA jkr dks ,d cts dk le; FkkA eSa Nr ij ?kj ij lks jgh FkhA 'kfuokj dk fnu FkkA es?kjkt o Hkwiflag nksuksa us esjs eqag esa diM+k Hkjdj tcjnLrh ls xksn esa ysdj Hkwiflag ds ?kj ys x;sA es?kjkt us esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA esjs fcuk ethZ ds fd;kA es?kjkt us viuk is'kkc djuk esjh is'kkc djuh esa ?kqlk fn;kA cgqr nsj rd esjs mij cykRdkj djrk jgkA nksuksa us eq>s cgqr cqjh rjg ls ekjk ihVkA /kedh nh dh fdlh dks ?kj esa crk fn;k rks rq>s o rsjs ?kj okyksa dks ekj nsaxsA vpkud esjs eqag ls vkokt fudy xbZA vkokt ij esjs rkm dk yM+dk ohjsUnz flag vk x;sA mUgsa ns[kdj os nksuksa Nr ds mij gksdj Hkkx x;sA vkBosa eghus dh rhl rkjh[k dh ckr gSA HkkbZ ?kj ij ys vk;kA HkkbZ us lkjh ckrsa iwNh rks eSaus crk;hA eSaus ml fnu diM+s igus j[ks Fks os iqfyl dks fn;sA In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Mamta, prosecutrix implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. In the statement to the police she stated as under : " vkt dh jkr djhc 11-30 ih0,e- dh ckr gS eSa vius ?kj dh Nr ij lkss jgh FkhA essjs ikl es?kjkt o Hkwi flag vk;s vkSj es?kjkt us eq>s xksn esa mBkdj lhfM;ksa ( yM+dh dh ) ls uhps mrkj fy;k vkSj vanj iyax ij fyVk fn;k rFkk Hkwiflag dks Hkxk fn;k mlds ckn mlus eq>ls dgk fd ukMk- [kksy rks eSaus euk fd;k vkSj mlus rksM+ fn;k rFkk esjs eqag es diM+k Hkj fn;k vkSj esjs mij ysV dj cqjk dk;Z fd;k vkSj fQj dgus yxk fd lkFk gh th;saxs lkFk gh ejsaxs fpark er djukA brus esa gh esjh eka us eq>s vkokt yxkbZ vkSj fQj ohjsUnz vk x;k rks es?kjkt Hkkxus yxk rks mldks idM+ fy;k vkSj mlds lkFk [kwc ekjihV dh rFkk eq>s esjh eka ?kj ys vkbZ es?kjkt dh nqdku ls ge m/kkj lkeku ykrs gSA rFkk fglkc djrs gSA es?kjkt gekjk iM+kSlh gS rFkk Hkwiflag dk ?kj rks gekjs ?kj ls lVk gqvk gSA " In the trial in case No.30 of 2004 against Bhoop Singh, the prosecutrix Mamta (PW.6) implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. In her court statement she stated as under : " 30-8-2003 dh ckr gSA jkr dks eSa viuh eka ds lkFk vius ?kj dh Nr ij lks jgh FkhA eEeh FkksM+h nsj ckn ePNjksa ds dkVus dh otg ls Nr ls uhps vk xbZA Nr ij esa vdsyh gh lks jgh FkhA fQj ogka es?kjkt vkSj Hkwiflag vk,A vkt U;k;ky; esa Hkwiflag gkftj vnkyr gSA Hkwiflag us esjs eqag esa Lokih Hkjh vkSj es?kjkt us eq>s xksnh esa mBk fy;kA vkSj eq>s tcjnLrh Hkwiflag es ?kj ys x,sA eq>s Hkwiflag ds ?kj esa mldh ikVksj esa ys x,A ikVksj esa esjs lkFk es?kjkt us cykRdkj fd;kA eSa cykRdkj dk eryc le>krh gawA es?kjkt us viuk is'kkc djuk esjh is'kkc djuh esa Mky fn;k vkSj cgqr nsj rd Mkys j[kkA Hkwiflag us esjs gkFk iSj idM+s Fks vkSj eaqg es Lokih Hkj nhA eSaus fojks/k fd;k FkkA cykRdkj djus ds ckn esjs lkFk ekjihV dh Fkh vkSj /kedh Hkh nh FkhA vkSj dgk Fkk fd fdlh ?kjokys dks crk fn;k rks rq>s vkSj rsjs ?kj okyksa dks ekj nsaxsA esjs eqag ls vpkud Lokih fudy xbZ rks eSaus gYyk epk;kA gYyk epkus ij esjs rkm dk yM+dk ohjsUnz vk x;kA ml le; Hkwiflag us esjh tsB Hkj j[kh Fkh vkSj es?kjkt us gkFk idM+ j[ks FksA ohjsUnz us VkpZ yxkbZ ftldh jks'kuh dks ns[kdj es?kjkt vkSj Hkwiflag Nr ij gks dj Hkkx x,A " In the statement before the court in Sessions case No.22 of 2005 Mamta (PW.11) prosecutrix implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when she was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when she was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. In the court statement she stated as under : " 30-8-2003 dh ckr gSA jkr ds Ms< cts dh ckr gSA eSa vius ?kj dh Nr ij lks jgh FkhA esjs eEeh Hkh essjs ikl lks jgh FkhA eEeh ePNj dkVus dh otg ls Nr ls uhps pyh x;hA fQj eSa vdsyh Nr ij lks jgh FkhA Nr ij es?kjkt o Hkwiflag vk;sA es?kjkt eqyfte vkt gkftj vnkyr gSA es?kjkt us eq>s xksnh esa mBk fy;k vkSj Hkwiflag us esjs eqag lkQh Hkj nhA fQj ;s nksuksa eq>s Hkwiflag ds ?kj ys x;s ?kj esa eq>s ikVksj esa ys x;s Fks] ikVksj esa ys tkdj es?kjkt us esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA eSa cykRdkj dk eryc le>rh gawA es?kjkt us viuk is'kkc djuk esjh is'kkc djuh esa ?kqlkdj cgqr nsj rd Mkys j[kkA Hkwiflag us ml le; esjs gkFk ikao idM+ j[ks FksA cykRdkj djus ds ckn eSa fpYykbZ FkhA cykRdkj djus ls igys Hkh fpYykbZ Fkh cykRdkj ds ckn Hkwiflag us o es?kjkt us esjs lkFk ekjihV dhA /kedh nh fd ;fn rwus ;g ckr fdlh dks crkbZ rks rw>s o rsjs ?kj okyks dks ekj nsaxsA esjs gYyk epkus ij esjk HkkbZ ohjsUnz vk;kA tc ohjsUnz esjs ikl vk;k rks es?kjkt us esjs gkFk idM+ j[ks Fks vkSj Hkwiflag us esjh tsB Hkj j[kh FkhA ohjsUnz us vkrs gh VkpZ yxk;h rks VkpZ dh jks'kuh ns[kdj ;s nksuksa Nr ls gksdj Hkkx x;sA fQj eq>s esjh eEeh vkSj esjk HkkbZ Hkwiflag ds ?kj ls ysdj vk;s tks Hkwiflag ds ?kj njoktk tks vUnj ls cUn Fkk eSaus [kksyk FkkA " In the statement before the court PW.1 Dr. Usha Gupta (in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005) stated as under : " esjs }kjk ijh{k.k djus ij xqIrkaxks ij dksbZ ckgjh pksV ugha ikbZ x;h FkhA gkbZeu ekStwn ugha ik;k FkkA ih0oh0 tkap esa ,d vaxqyh dfBukbZ ls izsf"kr gks jgh FkhA nks oStkbZuk Lokc vkSj ,d ostkbZuk Leh;j ds lsEiy ysdj lhy djds ,Q0,l0,y0 dks Hkstus ds fy;s ns fn;s FksA ------ eerk 16 o"kZ dh crk;h x;h FkhA blfy;s mlds lkFk laj{kd rkSj ij vk;s O;fDr ds gLrk{kj djk;s FksA ------ ,Q0,l0,y0 fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 2 esa tks oStkbZuy Leh;j o lyokj esa gkzqeu Leh;j ik;k x;k gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij esjh jk; ;g gS fd ihfM+rk eerk ds lkFk ijh{k.k fd;s tkus ds iwoZ eerk ds lkFk laHkksx gqvk FkkA " It is clear from her statement that she has given definite opinion about rape on the basis of the FSL report committed by the accused appellant Meghraj on the prosecutrix Mamta.In the statement before the court PW.4 Virendra ( in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005) implicated the accused appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. He has seen both the appellants running from the roop and seen them caught hold of Mamta. He has seen both the appellants running from the roop and seen them caught hold of Mamta. Virendra stated in his statement as under : " fnuakd 30-8-2003 dh jkr ds Ms<+ cts dh ckr gSA eSa vius ?kj ij lks jgk FkkA eSaus vpkud gsykgsy dh vkokt lquhA vkokt esjs pkpk fot;flag ds ?kj dh rjQ ls vk jgh FkhA vkokt lqudj eSa pkpk dh Nr dh rjQ x;kA esjs gkFk esa VkpZ yxh gqbZ FkhA vkokt esjs pkpk dh yM+dh eerk dh FkhA Hkwiflag ds ?kj ls eerk dh vkokt FkhAeSaus Hkwiflag ds ?kj esa VkpZ yxk;h rks jks'kuh esa eSus ns[kk fd es?kjkt iq= j.k/khj flag] Hkwiflag iq= j?kqohj flag Fks ftuesa ls es?kjkt us eerk ds gkFk idM+ j[ks Fks] Hkwiflag us eerk dh tsB Hkj j[kh FkhA ;s yksx eerk dh ekjk ihVh dj jgs FksA esjh VkpZ dh jks'kuh ns[krs gh ;s yksx Nr ds mij gksdj Hkkx jgs FksA eSaus es?kjkt o Hkwiflag nksuksa ds fojks/k djus dh dksf'k'k dh rks fojks/k djus esa lQy ugha gqvk fQj Hkwiflag ds edku ds ikl lkjs xkao ds yksx vk x;s Fks] xkao okys bu yksxksa dks pksj le> jgs FksA xkao okyksa us Hkwiflag o es?kjkt dh ekjk ihVh ejs lkeus dh FkhA xkao okys djhc 100&150 vkneh FksA fQj eSa vius pkpk ds ?kj okfil vk x;kA fQj eSa pkpk ds ?kj uhps mrjdj vk x;kA vkSj Hkwiflag ds ?kj x;sA njoktk vUnj cUn Fkk ftls eerk us [kksyk] tks lyokj ugha iguh gqbZ Fkh mij dqrkZ igus gqbZ Fkh ,oa mlh voLFkk esa ge eerk dks ?kj ys vk;sA Hkwiflag ds ?kj esjs lkFk eerk dh eka nqykjh] Hkwnso esjs pkpk dk yM+dk] esjs firkth egkjktflag x;s FksA eerk dh lyokj lkFk gh lkFk eerk dh eka ys vkbZA eerk ls geus iwNk rks mlus crk;k fd eSa Nr ij lks jgh Fkh rks jkr dks Hkwiflag o es?kjkt Nr ij vk;sA Hkwiflag ds gkFk esa lkQh Fkh ftlus eerk dk eqag cUn dj fy;k es?kjkt us eerk dks xksnh esa mBk fy;k o tcjnLrh mldks viuss ?kj ys x;sA eerk us crk;k fd es?kjkt us mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k gS o Hkwiflag us eerk dk gkFk iSj idM+s Fks o ekjk ihVh dh FkhA " In the statement before the court PW.5 Bhoodev stated as under : " eSa vius ?kj lks jgk Fkk rks Hkwiflag ds edku dh rjQ ls vpkud gsykgsy dh vkokt vkbZA bl ij eSa tkxdj ?kj ls fudydj Hkwiflag ds edku dh rjQ x;kA Hkwiflag ds edku ij dkQh HkhM+ gks jgh FkhA tc eSa ogka igqapk rks ohjsUnz] eerk dh eEeh vkSj eerk Hkwiflag ds njokts ls ckgj fudy jgs Fks fQj ge eerk dks ge eerk ds ?kj ys vk;sA eerk us ges crk;k fd og vius edku dh Nr ij lks jgh Fkh rks vpkud es?kjkt o Hkwifalag ogka ij vk;s vkSj Hkwiflag us eerk ds eqag esa diM+k Hkj fn;k vkSj es?kjkt eerk dks mBkdj Hkwifalag dh ikVksj ij ys x;kA mlus ;g Hkh crk;k fd Hkwifalag us mlds gkFk iSj idM+s Fks rFkk es?kjkt us mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k FkkA " In the statement before the court PW.8 Dulari, who is mother of the prosecutrix stated as under : " eerk Nr ij ugha FkhA ohjsUnz VkpZ ysdj vk;k Fkk eerk dks Hkwiflag ds ?kj es ns[kk eerk dh Hkwiflag us ihNs ls tsB Hkj j[kh Fkh vkSj es?kjkt us gkFk idM+ j[ks Fks eerk uaxh voLFkk esa FkhA mlls diM+s ugha igu j[ks FksA eSa o ohjsUnz njokts ij Hkwiflag ds vk;sA es?kjkt o Hkwiflag Nr ij gksdj ihNs ls Hkkx x;sA ge eerk dks vius ?kj uaxh voLFkk es ysdj vk;sA eerk us gesa crk;k fd is'kkc djuh esa nnZ gks jgk gSA mlus eq>s crk;k fd Hkwiflag ds ?kj esa es?kjkt us mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k Fkk ftlesa Hkwiflag us mldk lkFk fn;k FkkA " In the FSL report Ex.P.2 dated 12.5.2005, it was stated that human semen was detected in Exhibits No. 1 (from packet marked A) and 4 (from C). A and C were Salwar and Vaginal smear. 8. From the above it is clear that Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh in the first instance taken Mamta at the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh, Meghraj Singh committed rape with prosecutrix Mamta, which is proved by the statement of Mamta Prosecutrix, in his statement before the police, in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.c. , in her statements before the courts in both the cases, which are also corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Usha Gupta, who stated in her statement that rape was committed with the prosecutrix supported by the FSL report Ex.P.2 that human semen was found in the vaginal swab and salvar recovered by the police and sent for FSL. The accused appellant Meghraj Singh committed rape with the prosecutrix Mamta at the residence of Bhoop Singh and Bhoop Singh in the first instance facilitated Meghraj Singh and taken away Mamta at his residence and further facilitated him to commit rape on Mamta. As per evidence it is also proved that the accused appellants ran away from the house. Bhoop Singh appellant was arrested only on 27.12.2003. The appellant Meghraj Singh was arrested on 16.5.2005. The FIR was lodged by Meghraj Singh for the incident of 29.8.2003 on 30.8.2003 after registering of the FIR of rape by Virendra Singh. The FIR of Virendra Singh was lodged at 9.45 on 30.8.2003 which bears No.361 whereas the FIR lodged by Meghraj Singh at 5.5 p.m. which bears No.362. It is true that the villagers gave beating to Meghraj Singh and in that course of time he might have received injuries and those injuries were examined by the doctors Ex.D.8 at 11.15 a.m. on 30.8.2003. It appears that only to get pressure on the prosecution witnesses in the rape case, the appellant Meghraj Singh lodged the report at 11.55 a.m. on 30.8.2003. The trial court also did not believe the defence witness of accused appellant Bhoop Singh in his case and defence witness of Ramsharan, who stated that the age of prosecutrix is 19 years. The accused appellant Bhoop Singh, himself, who is neighbour of prosecutrix Mamta, stated her age in his defence witness that she is 14 years of age. The defence witnesses were not believed by the trial court in these circumstances. The accused appellant Bhoop Singh, himself, who is neighbour of prosecutrix Mamta, stated her age in his defence witness that she is 14 years of age. The defence witnesses were not believed by the trial court in these circumstances. Thus Meghraj Singh was rightly convicted under section 376 IPC and Bhoop Singh was rightly convicted under section 376 read with section 114 IPC as he first helped Meghraj Singh in procuring Mamta at his residence and thereafter facilitated him to commit rape on Mamta by him. I have also gone through the defence produced by the accused appellants and I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court in this regard. The defence was rightly rejected by the trial court. The arguments of the learned counsel in this respect is also devoid of merit and hence rejected. The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant Meghraj under section 376 IPC and accused appellant Bhoop Singh under section 376/114 IPC. The appellant Meghraj Singh was sentenced 7 years RI and since the appellant Bhoop Singh was aged about 65 years taking lenient view he has been sentenced 5 years RI with fine. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellants cannot be said to be perverse. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court is confirmed. 9. For the foregoing reasons the appeals filed by the accused appellants Meghraj Singh and Bhoop Singh ( Appeals Nos. 38 of 2006 and 1121 of 2005) being devoid of merit stand dismissed. The accused appellant Meghraj Singh is in jail, he shall serve the remaining sentence. The sentence of accused appellant Bhoop Singh was suspended by this court on 13.1.2006 and he is on bail, he shall be taken in custody forthwith for serving out the remaining sentence. In absence of deposit of fine the accused appellants shall also serve further sentence as ordered by the trial court.However, the State Government is directed to consider the cases of the accused appellants under Section 432 Cr.P.C. for granting them the benefit of remission in accordance with law.Appeal dismissed. *******