- (1.) Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dt. 20-11-1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra camp at Barmer in criminal case No. 41/1983, convicting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 374, Cr. P.C., this appeal is preferred on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal and also verbally canvassed before me.
(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record.
(3.) After going through the evidence and reappreciating the same, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that following serious discrepancies are revealed by the record and therefore, the order of conviction is not sustainable :- (1) The first information report is lodged after a delay of three days and there is no explanation forthcoming which is reasonably satisfactory in nature explaining the delay : (2) Immediately after occurrence of the incident, the occurrence was not disclosed either by the prosecutrix or by PW.3 Lala and PW. 4 Mueeb who admittedly accompanied the prosecutrix; (3) Even the prosecutrix PW.2 Imamat has stated that she called about the incident for a period of three days and there is no explanation for this unnecessary and unwarranted silence on behalf of the prosecution; (4) The evidence of the prosecutrix is not at all supported by the medical evidence given by the Doctor as P.W. 5; (5) There are material improvements in the evidence of P.W. 2 prosecutrix disclosing definite attempt to falsely charge the accused with rape and; (6) In view of the positive statements made in examination-in-chief by the prosecutrix and in view of the positive statements made in examination-in-chief by the Doctor who is independent witness, conviction as recorded by the learned Judge is not maintainable. ;