GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 15. 4. 1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Case No. 25/97 by which he convicted the accused appellant of the charges of the offence under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:- Name of accused appellants Convicted under Section Sentence awarded Meer Singh 376 IPC Seven years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months SI 341 IPC One month SI 447 IPC Two months SI 323 IPC Three months SI All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: On 16. 8. 1997 at about 5. 00 p. m. PW-8 Vimla D/o Mailal (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) lodged a report Ex. P/12 before PW-9, Rai Singh Baniwal, SHO, Police Station, Hameerwas, District Churu stating inter alia that she was a married lady and on 16. 8. 1997 at about 8. 30 a. m. she went to her field alongwith cow and goats for the purpose of grazing the cows and goats and when she was opening in Chhikiyas of cows and goats, at that time accused appellant asked her from the field of Harphool to come and help him in putting up the Bharothi, upon which, she stated that she was opening the Chhikiyas and, thereafter, accused appellant came near to her and caught hold her hands and then took her to the field of Harphool, where crops of Bajari were standing and, thereafter, accused appellant told her to put off her clothes, upon which she refused and, thereupon, accused appellant caught hold her both hands and put her down in Bajari and after forcibly opening the Nada of her Salwar, accused appellant committed rape on her and she made hue and cry, but nobody was there and after committing rape on her, accused appellant threatened her that in case she tried to tell this incident to anybody, he would kill her. Thereafter, she came to her house and told the whole story to PW-7 Dhankori and PW-6 Mailal and then, this report was lodged. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out FIR Ex. P/13 and started investigation. During investigation, through Ex. P. 10, Salwar of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla was seized and through Ex. P/11, her Jampher was seized. The broken bangles of the prosecutrix were also seized through Ex. P/9 by PW-9 Rai Singh in presence of PW-4 Pratap and PW-5 Malaram. The accused appellant was arrested through Ex. P/16. The prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla was got medically examined by PW-1 Dr. R. L. Bansal and her medical examination report is Ex. P/2. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused appellant in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 8. 10. 1997, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 376 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. In defence, four witnesses were produced by the accused appellant. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh through his judgment and order dated 15. 4. 1998 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia:- 1. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla is reliable one. 2. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla gets corroboration from the statements of PW-6 Mailal, her father and PW-7 Dhankori, her mother. 3. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla is further corroborated by the statement of PW-9 Rai Singh, SHO and IO in the present case and further from the conditions found on the place of scene, such as broken bangles were found on the place of scene etc. 4. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla gets further corroboration from medical evidence. 5. That defence evidence found in the statements of DW-2 Mahaveer, DW-3 Chandrabhan and DW-4 Hoshiyarsingh was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 15. 4. 1998, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant:- 1. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla should not be believed as there are some contradictions in her statement. 2. That it is a case of consent and since the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla did not receive any injury on her private part, case of forcible intercourse should not have been believed by the learned trial Court. 3. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. Before proceeding further, first medical evidence should be discussed here, which is found in the statement of Dr. R. L. Bansal, PW-1.
(3.) PW-1 Dr. R. L. Bansal states in his statement that on 16. 8. 1997 he was Medical Officer in Referral Hospital, Rajgarh and on that day, he medically examined prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla and found following injuries on her person:- 1. Linear abrasion 2. 5 cm long on left cheek redish in colour. 2. Bruise 2x1 cm on left cheek slightly redish. 3. Abrasion linear 1. 5 cm on left shoulder top redish in colour. 4. C/o pain over left wrist, both gluteal region and lower lip. In cross examination, this witness states that duration of injuries of the prosecutrix was not mentioned in the report Ex. P/2, but he has admitted that injuries were fresh and should have been caused within two hours from the time of examination. Thus, from the evidence of PW-1 Dr. R. L. Bansal, it appears that prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla received injuries which are mentioned in her report Ex. P/2. In this case, the alleged incident took place at 10. 00 a. m. on 16. 8. 1997 and the report Ex. P. /12 was lodged by the prosecutrix PW-8 on the very day at about 5. 00 p. m. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the report Ex. P/12. In the report Ex. P/12, whole version how rape was committed by the accused appellant the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla has been clearly mentioned. This report has been proved by the statements of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla and PW-6 Mailal. ;