- (1.) The respondents herein were charged with commission of an offence u/s. 342 and u/s. 376 of the Indian penal code. They were sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 for the offence u/s. 342 and two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500.00 for the offence u/s. 376 of the Indian penal code.
(2.) The prosecution case briefly put was: On 13.8.1979, in the evening, Bhanwar Singh, Respondent 1 herein (since deceased) had sent a boy named Gopia to the prosecutrix herein. She was asked to visit Respondent 1 on the pretence that he was having fever and injection was required to be given. Respondent 1 was himself a physician. From the prosecution case, it appears that both the respondents committed the alleged offence. Having regard to the order proposed to be passed by us, we need not deal with the matter in detail. Suffice it to say that the trial court opined: 1. That Trishiamma had narrated the incident to Ramsingh while going on foot from Anapur to Dantrail. 2. That Trishiamma had gone to Dr. R.C. Gupta, PW 4 in Revdar along with Sosamma. She had narrated the incident to him also and submitted report Exhibit P-4. 3. That Trishiamma, PW 11 had gone to the Chief Medical Officer, Sirohi and submitted the report Exhibit P-4 to him. Trishiamma had submitted the report Exhibit P-4 to SHO, PS Sirohi on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Sirohi. 4. That the underwear, Art. 2 of Trishiamma was recovered from the room which was in possession of the accused. 5. That the petticoat, Art. 1 was handed over to the police by Trishiamma and on chemical examination, human semen stains were found on it. 6. That during the medical examination of Trishiamma injuries were found on her cheek and genital organ which show that she was raped. 7. That at the time of the alleged incident, Rangubai had gone to the house of the accused and she had found his room closed from inside and the accused had asked her to go away from there at that time.
(3.) The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case and in particular the evidence of the prosecutrix. The learned trial Judge also opined that the statement of the prosecutrix has been corroborated in material particulars by other materials brought on record. The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgement did not meet any of the reasonings of the learned trial Judge. It held: "... The prosecutrix was a nurse. Her evidence is not reliable...." It further opined: "... In fact, it has come in evidence that there were relations between the accused and the prosecutrix. Therefore, it is very difficult to rely upon the testimony of the prosecutrix...." We do not subscribe to the said approach of the High Court.;