Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Babu vs State on 8 September, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 206/1987
Ram Babu Son of Marain Singh, Resident Of Bijoli, Police Station,
Bari, District Dholpur.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. C. Jain, Adv. with
Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 22.08.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 08.09.2022
Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment
& Order dated 20.05.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Dholpur in Sessions Case No.126/1985, whereby appellant was
convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under
Sections 366 and 376 IPC as under:-
Under Section 366 IPC - Two years rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment
thereof, to further undergo 3 months
simple imprisonment.
Under Section 376 IPC- Four years rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment
thereof, to further undergo six months
simple imprisonment.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(Downloaded on 12/09/2022 at 11:11:29 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-206/1987]
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix reached at
Police Chowki 8 Mile in the morning of 17.05.1985. The Chowki-
In-Charge Shri Sawailal sent message to SHO, Basai Dang. After
that, SHO, Basai Dang has produced the prosecutrix before the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholpur. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Dholpur has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix in which
she stated that her father and stepmother had sent with her
maternal-uncle but maternal-uncle left her alone at Sandara
Railway Station. At that time, accused appellant had taken to her
house and raped her. On the said statement, FIR was lodged
against the accused appellant.
After completion of investigation and necessary
formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
Charges were framed against the appellant under
Sections 366 IPC and 376 IPC.
In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution
examined 7 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent
and had been falsely involved in the case. Appellant examined 2
witnesses in his defence.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned trial Court has erred in ordering the conviction and
sentence of the appellant and also submits that the learned trial
Court has not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
the prosecutrix had not uttered a single word regarding rape
before the Chowki-In-Charge as well as SHO, Basai Dang. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that the SHO has taken
Pracha-Bayan of the prosecutrix in which she had not uttered a
(Downloaded on 12/09/2022 at 11:11:29 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-206/1987]
single word of rape against the appellant. Learned counsel for the
appellant also submits that during the trial, prosecution had not
examined the medical evidence to prove the rape. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix had
not received any injury on her body. Learned counsel for the
appellant also submits that the prosecution had not examined the
Investigating Officer during the trial. So, investigation is not
proved against the appellant. So, order of the learned trial Court
suffers from illegality or infirmity. Hence, order of the learned trial
Court be set-aside and appellant be acquitted.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that
order of the learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity
or illegality. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that the prosecutrix had not levelled the allegation of rape against the appellant when she reached at police Chowki. She had also not uttered a single word regarding rape at the time of Parcha-Bayan taken by the SHO, Basai Dang. During the trial, prosecution had not produced the medical evidence regarding rape and also failed in producing the Investigating Officer. It is also admitted position that the prosecutrix had not received any injury on her body. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. Hence, order of the learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside. (Downloaded on 12/09/2022 at 11:11:29 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-206/1987]
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned
judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court dated
20.05.1987 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Ram Babu Son of Marain Singh is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/02 (Downloaded on 12/09/2022 at 11:11:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)