Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Laturi @ Ramkishan vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 10 August, 2018
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 493/2018
with
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.306/2018
Laturi @ Ramkishan S/o Shri Hukamsingh B/c Gurjar , R/o
Tarsuma, Ps Gadi Bajna, District Bharatpur, Raj. At Present
Confined In Central Jail, Sewar, Bharatpur.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sumer Chand Sharma for Mr. Sanjay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 10/08/2018
1. Admit.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. With consent of the counsels the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by judgment and order dated 13.10.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Karauli whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 344 IPC and the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine.
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-493/2018]
5. In brief facts of the case are that a complaint Ex.P-7 was lodged before the Court on 20.07.2009, by Dashrath Singh with the allegation that the appellant has kidnapped her daughter.
6. The complaint was referred to the police and police registered FIR on 04.08.2009. After due investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, after hearing charge arguments, Court has framed charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 366, 363, 376 and 344 IPC.
7. Appellant denied the charges and sought trial upon which as many as 25 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 15 documents were Exhibited. Explanation of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was produced in defence Court after hearing the arguments has convicted the appellant for the above examined offences aggrieved by which notice the present appeal has been preferred.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as per statement of PW-25, principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Gadmandora, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 01.07.1992, on the date of the incident prosecutrix was above 17 years. She has turned hostile and has stated that she had relations with the appellant on her own free will. It is argued that at the relevant time, offence would fall under rape only if sexual intercourse was with the women with or without her consent. when she was under 16 years of age. It is contend that since prosecutrix was above 16 years of age and the matter was of consent, the same would not fall under the definition of rape.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. His contention is that the prosecutrix was kidnapped from her natural (3 of 3) [CRLAS-493/2018] guardian. She was kept in confinement and was raped by the appellant.
10. I have considered the contentions.
11. Admittedly prosecutrix was 17 years of age at the relevant time, she has been examined as PW-1 and she has stated in her examination-in-chief that she went with the appellant to Himachal Pradesh on her own free will. She has also mentioned that appellant kept her properly and had sexual relations with her, with her consent.
12. The matter is clearly of consent thus there was no justification for the Court below to convict the appellant.
13. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him, he be set at liberty forthwith.
13. Appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months.
14. The application for suspension of sentence also stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Arun/2 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)