Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 885 (RAJ)

Rupa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants Rupa Ram and Deepa Ram being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.1.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 8/1987 whereby, the appellants were convicted and sentences as below:- Appellant Offence under Section Sentence Fine Default in payment of fine Rupa Ram 376 I.P.C. 5 year R.1. 700/- 6 months R.1. 451 I.P.C. 6 months R.1. 250/- 2 months R.1. 147 I.P.C. 1 month R.1. 50/- 15 days R.1. Deepa Ram 366 I.P.C. 5 year R.1. 700/- 6 months R.1. 451 I.P.C. 6 months R.1. 250/- 2 months R.1. 147 I.P.C. 1 month R.1. 50/- 15 days R.1. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein below: The complainant Manroop lodged a written report Ex.P-1 at Police Station Rani on 21.6.1986 alleging inter alia that he along with his wife Dakhu had gone to Village Jawali to perform some ceremonies in relation to marriage of his daughter Mst.Ch. will Jawarilal. His sons Mishrimal and Ganesh and daughter Mst.Ch. were at his home. The accused persons namely, Teja, Pania, Rupa, Bhera and Deepa, the real brother of the first informant and 4-5 unknown persons came to his house in a Jonga vehicle in the night time at 11 O'clock and kidnapped his daughter for the purposes of marrying her off to Rupa Ram against her desire. Mishrimal and Ganesh tried to prevent the kidnapping on which, they were assaulted. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 32/1986 was registered at the Police Station Rani on 21.6.1986 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 363, 366, 452 and 323 I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The kidnapped girl was recovered from the possession of Rupa Ram and her custody was handed over to her father Manroop. While being recovered, the girl was found to be suffering from numerous injuries. Upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she corroborated the allegations set out in the F.I.R. and further alleged that Roopa Ram subjected her to forcible intercourse against her wishes after kidnapping her. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix and Rupa Ram were seized and forwarded to F.S.L. for analysis. Upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she corroborated the allegations set out in the F.I.R. and further alleged that Roopa Ram subjected her to forcible intercourse against her wishes after kidnapping her. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix and Rupa Ram were seized and forwarded to F.S.L. for analysis. The medical examination of the accused Rupa Ram was conducted and he was found having abrasions on his genitilia. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellants herein and Mangia, Bhagwat Singh, Kana, Rajjak, Jeevraj Singh, Amaria and Teja for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 363, 366, 376 and 452 I.P.C. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the above offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Rupa Ram in his statement disclosed that he had been engaged to prosecutrix. His father requested Manroop to perform the marriage ceremony but Manroop refused. He stated that being enraged by their insistence to get the marriage solemnized, a false case has been foisted upon him. One Bhera Ram was examined in defence. The learned Trial Judge, at the conclusion of the trial gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons other than the appellants herein. The appellants herein were convicted and sentences as above by judgment dated 27.1.1994, being aggrieved whereby, they have preferred the instant appeal. 3. Shri S.G. Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the learned Trial Judge is totally illegal and contrary to the material available on record. He vehemently urged that the entire case as set up by the prosecution is totally false. Deepa Ram is the real brother of the first informant Manroop. Roopa Ram's sister had been married to Deepa Ram and as per the custom of "atta satta" prevalent in the community, it was agreed that the prosecutrix would be married to Rupa Ram. The first informant tried to wriggle out from this commitment. He contended that when the accused party insisted that he should honour the words given by him, a totally false case has been foisted against them. The first informant tried to wriggle out from this commitment. He contended that when the accused party insisted that he should honour the words given by him, a totally false case has been foisted against them. He further contended that Rupa Ram is having a disability in both his hands and thus, it is impossible to believe that he could subject the prosecutrix to forcible rape against her desire. As per the medical examination, the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident. Thus, as per him the physical relations, if any, established between the prosecutrix and Rupa Ram were consensual. Thus, he urged that the appeal should be accepted and while setting aside the judgment of conviction, the appellants herein deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' Counsel. He urged that there was no occasion for the complainant party to have falsely implicated the accused. There is no material to support the contention of the accused that the prosecutrix had been engaged to Roopa Ram. The accused party had been pressurising Manroop to marry his daughter with accused Roopa Ram but he was not acceding to these pressures. In fact, Manroop had engaged the prosecutrix to a boy of village Javali. He and his wife had gone to village Javali for performing some ceremonies in relation to the marriage of his daughter and behind his back, the accused persons hatched an evil conspiracy and kidnapped the girl with the intention of marrying her off to Roopa Ram, who is a physically handicapped person. The girl was assaulted after being kidnapped and under the threat of being killed, she was subjected to forcible intercourse against her wishes. The girl has given clinching evidence against the accused persons. Thus, he urged that no interference is called for in the well reasoned judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. The factual compass requiring the Court's consideration in the case at hand is very narrow. The first informant has come out with a clear case that his daughter was to be married off to a boy at Javali and he had gone with his wife to Javali for performing some ceremonies in relation thereto. 6. The factual compass requiring the Court's consideration in the case at hand is very narrow. The first informant has come out with a clear case that his daughter was to be married off to a boy at Javali and he had gone with his wife to Javali for performing some ceremonies in relation thereto. The accused party was insisting on getting the prosecutrix betrothed to Roopa Ram who is a physically handicapped person on the pretext that such an agreement was entered into between the parties at the time when Roopa Ram's sister was married to the accused Deepa Ram. It appears that the accused have tried to concoct this theory for justifying their heinous offending act. Be that as it may, the prosecutrix Ms. Ch., who was examined as PW-9 at the trial, gave cut clear gory details of the incident in her statement. She stated that she was kidnapped from the house of his father in the night time between 20.6.1986 and 21.6.1986. While doing so, the accused assaulted her brothers namely, Mishrimal and Ganesh. No significant cross-examination was conducted from the prosecutrix so as to doubt her testimony. Mishrimal, Ganesh and Sukhli W/o Mishrimal were examined as PW-5, PW-10 and PW-20 at the trial. They gave clinching testimony to establish that the accused persons came to their house in a preplanned manner and kidnapped the prosecutrix. A farfetched suggestion was given to PW-10 Ganesh that the girl had gone with Roopa Ram of her own free will and volition. 7. The incident occurred in the night intervening 20.6.1986 and 21.6.1986. The prosecutrix was recovered from the confinement of Roopa Ram on 21.6.1986 and in the recovery memo Ex.P-24, there is a description of large number of injuries on her body. The recovery officer also noticed that her clothes were torn. Accused Roopa Ram too was arrested on the very same day i.e. 21.6.1986. Immediately at the time of recovery, the prosecutrix told the police officer that she had been kidnapped by the accused persons and thereafter Roopa Ram subjected her to rape against her wishes. 8. As noticed above, the accused Roopa Ram was medically examined and number of abrasions were noticed on his genitilia which clearly corroborate the allegation of the prosecutrix regarding forcible penetration. 8. As noticed above, the accused Roopa Ram was medically examined and number of abrasions were noticed on his genitilia which clearly corroborate the allegation of the prosecutrix regarding forcible penetration. The clothes of the accused as well as the prosecutrix were seized and were forwarded to F.S.L. from where a report Ex.P-33 was received to the effect that human semen was detected in the underwear of the accused and the Ghaghra of the prosecutrix. 9. In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution duly and beyond all manner of doubt proved the guilt of the accused by convincing and clinching evidence. The act of the accused was extremely highhanded. The accused party was persevering and pressurising the first informant to marry off his daughter the prosecutrix Mst.Ch. to accused Roopa Ram by way of "atta satta" as Roopa Ram's sister marriage had been married to Deepa Ram, who is none else than the real brother of the first informant. The first informant was not agreeable to said relation and had engaged his daughter with another boy. Thus the accused, by using brute force and stake their claim on the girl as if she was chattel, forcibly kidnapped her from her father's house and she was thereafter subjected to forcible intercourse. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the finding of guilt of the accused as recorded as recorded by the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified, legal and is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court in appeal. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby rejected. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall within eight weeks surrender before the Trial Court and shall be sent to custody for serving out the remaining part of sentence awarded to them, failing which, the Trial Court shall issue warrants to arrest to secure their custody.