MANGIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentenced passed on 31-1-86 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 85/85, which is as under, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal :-

(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the learned P. P., I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story as disclosed on reappreciation of evidence is that on 6-5-83 a First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged by one Lali d/o Kehsa to the effect that on 5-5-83 at about 10 a.m. when she was alone in the home Smt. Lali w/o Laxman came to her and asked her to accompany her to Begun. She was persuaded to accompany her to go to Begun to witness a picture. It was then stated that after watching one movie, they took their dinner in a hotel and again saw another film in the mid night and when they were returning after the midnight show, she was assaulted by accused Mangiya and was raped by him. The F.I.R. also mentions that the prosecutrix was assaulted and raped by other male members present i.e. Laxman and Bhojiya. On the basis of this F.I.R., investigation was taken up. The accused persons were arrested and on completion of investigation, they were challaned for having committed offences under Sections 366, 376 and 376 read with S. 114, I.P.C. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case for rape, that certain documents executed during the course of investigation were to be proved. Relying on these documents and the oral testimony of the 11 witnesses, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused persons were guilty of the offences with which they were charged and he, therefore, convicted them as aforesaid for those offences. It is this order of conviction, which is assailed in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel that reappreciation of the evidence will show that there are definite improvements in the prosecution case and false implication of certain accused persons, if proved, and in the circumstances, the testimony of the prosecutrix is liable to be rejected as a whole. According to the learned counsel, it is a clear case of consent and even if it is accepted that intercourse did take place, no case of rape is made out. It was then argued by the learned counsel that in any event, the conviction of Bhojiya, Laxman and Smt. Lali w/o Laxman is wholly unsustainable in law. There is no evidence whatever of any offence u/S. 366 having been committed nor there is any reason to believe that the accused Bhojiya, Laxman and Smt. Lali w/o Laxman abducted the prosecutrix Lali d/o Kesha or abetted in the offence of rape by Mangiya. The learned P. P. relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix and others, claimed that the order of conviction is proper.