MAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Makhan Singh has challenged his conviction under Section 376 IPC and sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default further simple imprisonment for one year recorded by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Shri Ganganagar by his judgment dated 22. 3. 99 in Sessions Case No. 92/97.

(2.) ONE Jagga Singh son of Shanker Singh resident of 8k made a report at Police Station, Hanumangarh on 28. 3. 96 at 1. 30 PM. stating therein that he had gone to the house of Harbans Singh on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter with all the members of the family on 27. 3. 96. His daughter Pema Bai aged 14 years wearing yellow suit and black shoes went back at 10. 00 to wash the clothes and to come back again. His son-in-law Resham Singh son of Darshan Singh Raisikh resident of 365 Head was present in the house and at about 11. 00 A. M. The appellant accused Makhan Singh came there and called Pema Bai outside the house. He told her that she is required to be present in the marriage immediately and her mother was calling her in the function. Thus,. Pema Bai accompanied the appellant. It was informed by Resham Singh to him when they came back to their house. He searched Pema Bai at the house of Harbans Singh, but Pema Bai and Makhan Singh both were not traceable. Jagga Singh continued search of his daughter and in the evening one Nagar Singh informed him that he had seen Pema Bai going with the appellant Makhan Singh. It was alleged in the F. I. R. that the appellant had kidnapped her daughter.

(3.) RESHAM Singh PW/3 has also supported the prosecution case that the appellant had come to the house and took the prosecutrix from there with him and thereafter he was not traceable. This fact is also deposed by Jagga Singh father of the prosecutrix PW/4. Nagar Singh PW/1 has also stated that he saw the prosecutrix with Makhan Singh, but by that time the bus had left the bus-stand. Dr. K. K. Garg, Medical Jurist has also supported the prosecution case by stating the condition found on examining the private parts. It is true that there was no other visible injury on the person of the prosecutrix but it merely suggests that she could not and therefore did not resist the violation of her body by the appellant. This fact also do not show that commission of the said act involved her consent in view of the unequivocal and trustworthy statement of the prosecutrix. As a result of the above discussion, 1 come to the conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence u/s. 376 I. P. C. beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the same.