Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) At the time of hearing of application for suspension of sentence, a request was made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that the appeal itself may be heard finally as the record has already been received. Hence, the appeal itself was heard finally.
(2.) This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 74/98 by which he acquitted both the accused appellants for the offence under section 368 IPC, but convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under sections 376, 366 and 450 IPC and sentenced in the following manner : JUDGEMENT_119_LAWS(RAJ)3_2001_1.html All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) It arises in the following circumstances : On 13.4.1998, a written report Ex. P 1 was lodged by P.W. 1 Madi prosecutrix before P.W. 5 Tej Singh, SHO, Police Station Anandpuri, District Banswara stating that on 7.3.1998 in the night when P.W. 1 Madi was sleeping alongwith her younger children and her husband PW. 2 Rooplal was out of station near about 8-9 PM both accused appellants came to her house and woke up her asking her to go with them and, thereafter, accused appellant Kawla pressed her mouth and another accused appellant Kalu caught hold her hands and they dragged her and took her to the village Khuti Bijiya and kept in the house of Mala, where both accused appellants committed rape on her and kept her there for ten days. It was further stated in the report that she was threatened by the accused appellants that in case she tried to come back to her house, they would kill her. Thereafter, after the festival of Holi, both accused appellants took her village Ghamadiya and they kept her in the house of Hadiya for 8-10 days, where both accused appellants committed rape on her against her will. It was further stated in the report that before 5 days of lodging the report, she came back to her house and she told the whole story to her father P.W. 4 Dalla and then her husband P.W. 2 Rooplal was informed about the alleged incident. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out FIR Ex. P 2 and started investigation. During investigation, the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Madi was got medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. Ramakant Mali and her medical examination report is Ex. P 7. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellants in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 15.7.1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara framed charge against the accused appellants for the offence under sections 450, 376, 366 and 368 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No evidence in defence was led by the accused appellants. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara vide his judgment and order dated 10.1.2001 acquitted the accused appellants of the charge under section 368 IPC, but 20 convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under sections 376, 366 and 450 IPC and sentenced in the manner as indicated above holding interalia : 1. That so far as the delay in lodging the report is concerned, explanation has been given by the prosecution and, therefore, delay in this case is not fatal. 2. That statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Madi is reliable as there is no contradiction in her statement. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 10.1.2001 passed by he learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.;