Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) The aforementioned three appeals are being decided by this common judgment as they have been preferred by accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 28/82 by which he convicted each accused appellant for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the following manner- JUDGEMENT_133_LAWS(RAJ)3_2001_1.html The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) they arise in the following circumstances - On 2.7.1982 at about 5.00 PM. statement of PW1 Santosh (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) was recorded by PW9 Naraindas, ASI, Police Station Merta Road, in other words, prosecutrix stated before him that her husband used to serve at Jaipur and on that day she boarded the bus from village Pirotasni (her father-in-law's house) for going to her village Bharnokha (her parents house). She alighted from the Bus at Merta City at 10.00 AM. Thereafter, she went on foot to Merta Road Octroi Check Post with the hope that she would get some vehicle for going to her village Bharnokha. The prosecutrix has further stated that while she was sitting near the Octroi Check Post, accused appellant Bhanwaria approached and asked her with whom she had come there and whereupon, she replied that she had come alone. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that thereafter, another accused appellant Ram Karan approached her and pointed towards a Load-truck and told that the said truck would go to village Bharnokha and also requested her to board the truck, but she declined to do so. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that thereafter accused Ram Karan and Bhanwaria got her sitted in the truck and another accused Ramu Ram was also sitting in the Truck. The prosecutrix has further stated that thereafter all the three accused appellants took her in the Truck towards village Bankaliya was and stopped the Truck at some distance from stone Quarry. From where she was taken to the Quarry where accused appellants Bhanwaria and Ramu Ram committed rape on her. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that thereafter, she ran away from that place and stood in front of a coming Truck and requested the driver of that Truck to drop her at Merta, but the driver of that Truck declined to take her in the Truck and told her that he would inform about this incident. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that all the three accused appellants again took her to the quarry and accused appellant Ram Karan also committed rape on her and thus, accused appellants committed rape on her twice and she made hue and cry and on hearing her cries, 4-5 persons, namely, PW2 Hanwantsingh, PW 3 Jagmalsingh, PW 4 Karnaram, PW5 Bhaiiwaroo and PW 7 Mangilal came there and she was saved by them and at that time, when these persons reached, accused appellant Bhanwaria was committing rape on her, while other accused appellants Ramu Ram and Ramkaran were sitting at some distance. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that all the three accused appellants were apprehended by these persons and they brought the accused appellants alongwith prosecutrix to the village Bankaliyawas. Then, PW 9 Naraindas on the instructions of PW 6 Guganram, SHO arrived at the village Bankaliyawas, where he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. Upon the statement of prosecutrix Ex.P/1, FIR Ex.P/6 was chalked out at Police Station Merta Road and investigation was started. During investigation, the accused appellants Bhanwaria, Ramuram and Ramkaran were arrested through Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 respectively on the spot by PW 9 Naraindas and underwear of these accused appellants were seized through Ex.P/9, Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/7 respectively. The prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh was got medically examined by PW 10 Dr. Tulcharam in respect of rape as well as ascertaining her age and her report is Ex.P/14. The accused appellants Ram Karan, Ramu Ram and Bhanwaria were also got medically examined and their reports are Ex.P/10, Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12 respectively and these reports have been admitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellants during trial. After usual investigation police submitted challan against the accused appellants for the offence under section 366 and 376 IPC before the Court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 20.11.1982 learned Sessions Judge Merta framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
(3.) After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Merta through his judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia - 1. That in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh is reliable one as the same has been corroborated by medical evidence and medical evidence consists not only of the prosecutrix herself, but also of the accused appellants. 2. That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Merta, these three appeals have been filed by the accused appellants separately. 3. In these appeals, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants- 1. That the statement of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh has been wrongly believed by the learned Sessions Judge as no injuries on her back, neck and buttocks etc. were found as they should have been found when she was dragged by the accused appellants. 2. That labourers, who were working in the stone quarry have not been produced and in absence of their statements, prosecution case should not have been believed. 3. That clothes of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh as well as the accused appellants have not been produced in the court and in absence of this, the case of the prosecution suffers from basic infirmity. 4. That so far as the accused appellants namely, Ramuram and Ramkaran is concerned, smegma was found over the glance penis and thus, the presence of smegma rules out the act of sexual intercourse by them and thus, they should have been acquitted on this ground alone. Hence, it is prayed that these appeals be allowed and the accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them.;