AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-
with default stipulation
Under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-
with default stipulation
Under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years The jail sentences are
directed to run concurrently
her jeth Domar Singh (PW5) and her jethani Saroj (PW3) till her husband returned home. She has further admitted that she herself did not go to her,
husband to tell him about the incident.,
Mona (PW2), aged about 11 years, the eldest daughter of the prosecutrix, has stated that she was sleeping in the room along with her 2 brothers",
and mother (the prosecutrix). Having heard the shouts of her mother, she woke up and saw that the Appellants were dragging her mother by her hair",
towards inside the room and thereafter they committed wrong act with her mother. At that time, Appellant Hukum threatened her (Mona) that if she",
shouts he will kill her. She has further stated that her mother had not seen her that she had woken up and was witnessing the incident. Her mother,
saw her after the incident when the Appellants had gone out. In paragraph 6, this witness has stated that when her father returned home, her mother",
told him about the incident.,
At that time, she was sleeping. Next day, in the morning, when her father verified about the incident from her then she told him about the incident. In",
paragraph 8 of her cross-examination, she has also admitted that she also did not disclose about the incident till her father returned home, i.e., for a",
period of about one month. In paragraph 13, this witness has stated that next day, in the morning, she and her two brothers had gone out to attend the",
call of nature. At that time, her mother was sleeping. She has further stated that she used to go to school daily at about 10:00 a.m., but on that day, she",
did not go to school and her both the brothers also stayed at home.,
Dahabar Singh (PW4), husband of the prosecutrix has stated that on 8.3.1998, he had gone to Village Rawan. On 5.4.1998, he returned home. On",
his return, her wife (the prosecutrix) told him about the incident. Thereafter, he verified about the incident from his daughter Mona (PW2). Mona",
narrated him about the incident. In paragraph 6, he has stated that at Village Rawan, he had taken a room and was residing there and his wife (the",
prosecutrix) was also aware of the fact that he was employed in a factory at Village Rawan, but she did not come to him at Village Rawan to inform",
him about the incident. In paragraph 7, he has also admitted that whenever he used to go to Village Rawan, he had been asking his brother Domar",
Singh (PW5) and Saroj (PW3), wife of Domar Singh to keep an eye on his wife (the prosecutrix).",
Saroj (PW3), wife of Domar Singh (PW5) and jethani of the prosecutrix has stated that on 5.4.1998, the prosecutrix had told about the incident to",
her husband Domar Singh (PW5) and she came to know about the incident from her husband Domar Singh. In paragraph 3 of her cross-examination,",
she has admitted the fact that even after 8.3.1998, she used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and she had observed that the behaviour of the",
prosecutrix and her children was normal. She has also admitted the fact that she and the prosecutrix were close friends and they used to talk to each,
other while they were sitting on a chabutara (a platform) constructed in front of their houses, but the prosecutrix did not disclose her anything about",
the incident.,
Domar Singh (PW5), jeth of the prosecutrix has stated that on 5.4.1998, in the night, his brother Dahabar Singh (PW4) (husband of the",
prosecutrix) came to his house and told him about the incident. In paragraph 3, this witness has admitted the fact that whenever Dahabar Singh (PW4)",
used to go out, he had been asking him to keep an eye on his wife (the prosecutrix). In paragraph 6, this witness has also admitted the fact that",
between him and Ramkrishna, father of Appellant Madho, a land dispute was going on.",
Dr. Suniti Manglurkar (PW6), who examined the prosecutrix on 7.4.1998, has stated that her report is Ex.P4 in which she did not find any injury",
over any part of the body of the prosecutrix. She found the prosecutrix to be habitual to sexual intercourse. No definite opinion could be given,
regarding recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.,
Dr. R.S. Thakur (PW9) has stated that he examined all the Appellants on 7.4.1998 and found them to be capable of performing sexual,
intercourse. His reports are Ex.P11, P12, P13 and P14. Patwari Sadhram (PW8) has stated that he prepared spot-map (Ex.P10).",
Assistant Sub-Inspector Hemchand Verma (PW12) was the Investigating Officer of the offence in question. He has stated that he investigated,
the offence. He recorded the FIR (Ex.P1). He seized petticoat of the prosecutrix and underwears of the Appellants. He recorded statements of the,
witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,
Kotwar Sagundas (DW2) has stated that on 11.3.1998, Domar Singh (PW5) was abusing in front of the house of Appellant Madho. On this, he",
had prevented Domar Singh. Ganesh Ram (DW3) and Kejuram (DW4) have also stated that on 11.3.1998, a quarrel had taken place between Domar",
Singh (PW5) and Appellant Madho.,
A minute examination of the above evidence makes it clear that though the prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed that on 8.3.1998, in the night, the",
Appellants came her house and committed rape with her one by one and this statement is also corroborated by Mona (PW2), her eldest daughter,",
from the evidence it is clear that till 5.4.1998, neither the prosecutrix nor her daughter Mona disclosed the incident to anyone. They had ample",
opportunity to disclose the incident between 8.3.1998 and 5.4.1998. As stated by Saroj (PW3), she and the prosecutrix were close friends and they",
used to meet with each other daily and have a talk, but the prosecutrix did not disclose her about the incident. The prosecutrix was aware of the fact",
that her husband was residing in other Village Rawan and he was employed there in a factory, but she did not try to go to him at Village Rawan and",
tell him about the incident.,
As stated by the prosecutrix, on 9.3.1998 also, Ramkrishna, father of Appellant Madho had committed rape with her at her house. At that time, she",
was alone at her house and her children had gone out. But, Mona (PW2), the eldest daughter of the prosecutrix has categorically stated that on",
9.3.1998, she and her both the brothers had stayed at home along with their mother (the prosecutrix) and none of them had gone out for the whole",
day. In the circumstances, the statement of the prosecutrix that on the next day also, i.e., on 9.3.1998, a rape was committed with her is doubtful.",
From the evidence, it is also clear that neither in the FIR nor in her Court statement, the prosecutrix (PW1) has stated that the incident was witnessed",
by her eldest daughter Mona (PW2). On the date of incident, Mona (PW2) was a child of 11 years' age. Looking to the facts and circumstances of",
the case, there is a possibility that Mona would have been tutored about her deposition. From the evidence, it is also clear that Domar Singh (PW5) is",
jeth (brother-in-law) of the prosecutrix and he was residing in the house situated adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix and both the houses were,
parted by a wall only.,
As per the Court statement of Mona (PW2), she had woken up due to having heard the shouts of her mother (the prosecutrix) and the threatenings",
being given by the Appellants to her mother. If it was so, Domar Singh (PW5) and his family members, who were residing adjacent to the house of",
the prosecutrix, would have also heard the same, but they did not hear so, which appears to be unnatural. From the statement of Domar Singh (PW5)",
and Dahabar Singh (PW4), it is also clear that whenever Dahabar Singh used to go out, he had been asking Domar Singh to keep an eye on his wife",
(the prosecutrix). From the statement of Mona (PW2) also, it is clear that on return of her father Dahabar Singh (PW4), the prosecutrix had told him",
about the incident. But, next day, Dahabar Singh first verified the same from his daughter Mona (PW2) and thereafter the FIR was lodged. Thus, it is",
clear that Dahabar Singh was having suspicion over the character of his wife (the prosecutrix) and even after disclosing about the incident to him by,
his wife, he did not directly proceed for lodging of the FIR, but first verified from his daughter Mona (PW2) and then the FIR was lodged.",
From the above discussion, it is clear that statements of the prosecutrix (PW1) and her daughter Mona (PW2) do not inspire confidence of this",
Court. Their statements are unnatural. The FIR was also lodged belatedly. The reason for delay explained by the prosecutrix in lodging the FIR is not,
acceptable. From the statement of Domar Singh (PW5), it is also clear that there was a land dispute between him and Ramkrishna, father of",
Appellant Madho and as stated by Kotwar Sagundas (DW2), Ganesh Ram (DW3) and Kejuram (DW4), on 11.3.1998, an abuse and a quarrel had",
taken place between Domar Singh (PW5) and Appellant Madho. In these circumstances, there appears possibility of false implication of the",
Appellants in the instant case. Looking to the evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the offence alleged against Appellants No.2, 3 and 4 under",
Sections 376(2)(g), 450 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, they are entitled to get benefit of",
doubt.,
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellants No.2, 3 and 4 are acquitted of the",
charges framed against them.,
It is reported that Appellants No.2, 3 and 4 are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of the",
provisions contained in Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,
Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,