Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 117 (RAJ)

Manak Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-17

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the appellant Manak Ram S/o Hammirji by caste Chokidar R/o Sandia Distt. Pali against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2006, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No. 2 Pali, in Sessions Case No. 9/2006, by which the trial Court held the accused appellant Manak Ram guilty for the commission of offence under Sections 376 and 450 I.P.C. Under Section 376 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and under Section 450 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. Prosecution story as disclosed during the course of investigation and trial is that on dated 15.1.2006 at 9.45 P.M. Padma alongwith her father Birdi Chand lodged First Information Report at Police State (sic Station) Bagri Nagar Distt. Pali stating that on 12.1.2006 when the father of the prosecutrix was out of station and her mother had also gone to village Gaguda, she was all alone in her house then at 3.30 P.M. Manak Ram came and forcibly brought her to the sheds used for gazing goats and committed rape with her. On this report, Criminal Case No. 8/2006 was registered against Manak Ram and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, medical examination of prosecutrix as well as of the accused was conducted. Statements of 14 witnesses and in defence three witnesses i.e. DW-1 Manak Ram, DW-2 Sint. Patasi and DW-3 Jeewa Ram were also examined. Accused was arrested and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Manak Ram in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sojat from where the case was committed to Sessions Judge, Pali, who in turn transfer the case to the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No. 2, Pali. Accused appellant was charged for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and to which he did not plead guilty for commission of offence and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. Krishna Gopal, PW-2 Dr. District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No. 2, Pali. Accused appellant was charged for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and to which he did not plead guilty for commission of offence and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. Krishna Gopal, PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh, PW-3 Smt. Narmada, PW-4 Birdhi Chand, PW-5 Devi, PW-6 Pukh Raj, PW-7 Kailash Chand, PW-8 Ram Lal, PW-9 Rohitas, PW-10 Dr. Rakesh Garg, PW-11 Ram Pal, PW-12 Surya Bhan Singh, PW-13 Kishan Lal and PW-14 Padma. The incriminating evidence adduced against the appellant was put to him for explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 376 and 450 of the I.P.C. and awarded the sentence as indicated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of prosecutrix PW-14 Padma alongwith evidence of prosecutrix PW-14 Padma alongwith evidence of PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh who is a medical expert. Counsel for the appellant further contended that the evidence of PW-14 Padina has not been corroborated by any other independent witness and further her age at the relevant time was found to be in between 16 to 18 years and it is a settled principle of law that two years variation can be possible in the case of medical expert's evidence and further PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh deposed that there were signs of earlier sexual assault, therefore, no offence can be said to be proved against the accused-appellant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial Court. 5. On perusal of the statement of PW-14 Padma alongwith statement of PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh specially on the statement of Dr. Ansuiya Harsh it is revealed that although there was evidence of earlier sexual assault but she further deposed that there was redness on the private parts of the prosecutrix and further it is a settled principle of law that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not require any further corroboration by the independent witness and in the present case particularly as per the F.I.R., the offence was committed when PW- 14 Padma was sleeping all alone in her house. 6. I have perused the judgment of the learned trial Court and the statements of witnesses. 6. I have perused the judgment of the learned trial Court and the statements of witnesses. Learned trial Court while relying upon the evidence of PW-14 Padma and PW-2 Dr. Ansuiya Harsh found the accused guilty for offence under Sections 376 and 450 I.P.C. and in my opinion, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the accused-appellant for the above offences in view of the evidence available on record. 7. Accordingly, judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 6.6.2006 is affirmed. On the point of sentence learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused was arrested on 17.1.2006 and now he has served about five years imprisonment, therefore, his sentenced may be reduced to the period already undergone. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there was no direct resistance on the part of the prosecutrix and age of the prosecutrix was on the border line of 16 to 18 years, therefore, I deem it just and proper that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years to the accused appellant will serve the ends of justice for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further in default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant shall undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Further for the offence under Section 450 I.P.C., the accused-appellant shall undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. It is ordered that both the sentences shall nun concurrently. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed against the accused-appellant, the order of sentence is modified to the extent indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******