SUBLI HAJAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused was tried in Session's case 4/82 for offence under S. 376/511, RPC by District and Sessions Judge Baramulla. The trial culminated in the conviction of Appellant/accused for the offence vide judgment/order of conviction dated 31-12-1985 and was sentenced subsequently to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under S. 376/511, RPC by order of sentence dated 1-1-1986 by the Session's Judge. Against this conviction and sentence this criminal Appeal 1/86 is taken to this Court.

(2.) Shorn of details, prosecution case is, that on 28-8-81, Mst. Khati, Complainant witness, while busy in collecting grass on her field at a place called "Raaj" nearly a mile away from village aabadi at Inderkote Sonawari Tehsil Sumbal, was approached by appellant/accused for sexual intercourse which she refused. Accused caught hold of her cheeks and threw her on ground. He attempted to open her trousers. The lady resisted, but accused persisted in his attempt and put his foot on her chest and in order to remove her trousers she raised an alarm which attracted prosecution witnesses 3 to 7 to spot on whose arrival accused ran away. During the struggle, she received injuries on her ear, cheeks and other parts of her body. Some of these injuries bleeded profusely and her pinna of right ear was torn, her cloths were also torn. The accused perpetrated these acts with the object of committing rape on her which but for her struggle and resistance did not materialize. All this happened at about 3 p.m. The witnesses took her to home. She waited for her husband who was away. On return of her husband, he accompanies her to police station. She lodged report at about 9-15 p.m. The report was registered as FIR 204 of 81 at police station Sumbal Sonawari. She was referred to local doctor for examination. Injuries report was prepared. Doctor examined her and injury report/medical certificate was obtained. Seizure memo of complainant's garments which she wore at the time of occurrence as also the site plan of occurrence was prepared. Statements under S. 161, Cr. P.C. of the witnesses were recorded. The investigations culminated in sending up accused for trial under S. 376/511, RPC. The accused was committed to Sessions. The District and Sessions Judge tried accused for charged offence under S. 376/511, RPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecution examined besides complainant/prosecutrix, five witnesses, though two witnesses including the Doctor, were given up. Accused was examined under S. 342, Cr. P.C. and he examined two witnesses in defence. The trial concluded in above conviction and sentence of accused under S. 376/511, RPC.

(3.) The conviction and sentence is challenged in this appeal on number of counts. The trial Court is alleged not to have appreciated the evidence properly. The case is stated to have been decided on sentiments in an unfair and unreasonable manner. The judgment and order of trial Court is alleged to be based not on facts and evidence led in the case. The defence of the accused has not been evaluated in proper context and has been wrongly brushed aside.