- (1.) These two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 6-2-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 29/96 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents-Shanker Lal, Mangilal, Suresh Chandra and Nanuram for the offence under Ss. 366/149, 376/149, 379, 379/149, I.P.C. and he also acquitted the accused-appellants-Mohan for the offence under Ss. 376/149, 379/149 and Udailal for the offence under S. 376, I.P.C. but convicted accused-appellants-Mohan for the offence under S. 366 and Udailal for the offence under Ss. 366 and 379, I.P.C. and sentenced them in the following manner :- Name of accused appellants Convicted under section Sentence awarded 1. Mohan 366 IPC Three years RI and topay fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months. 2. Udailal 366 IPC Three years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00,in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months. 379 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine,to further undergo SI for two months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. #
(2.) The facts giving rise to these appeals, in short, are as follows :- On 7-11-1995. P.W. 13 Mst. Naru widow of Bhagwanlal, aged 21 years (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) lodged an oral report (Ex. P/15) with the Police Station Beghu District Chittorgarh before P.W. 12 Netrapal Singh stating inter-alia that before 8 days, her maternal uncle in-law Mohan (accused-appellant) took her from her in-laws' house to Upreda for the purpose of giving lugari to her. It was further stated in the report that 4 days back, he again came back in the evening and asked her to go to Joganiya Mata, but she refused to go there. However, when he told her that there were so many ladies, then she agreed to go with him and then a Jeep came there and she sat in the jeep and in that Jeep, some accused persons were also there. The driver of the Jeep was Mohammedan. It was further stated in the report that she reached Joganiya Mata at about 2.00 a.m., where one Chowkidar also met and when she reached there, accused-appellant-Mohan and accused-respondent-Suresh asked her that she would be married with accused-appellant-Udailal, upon this, she refused, but she was threatened and her marriage was performed with accused-appellant-Udailal and she was allowed to remain in a room. Where accused-appellant-Udai Lal had sex with her against her will. Thereafter, they left her to Muroli in the morning and from where she went to her parents' house and told the whole incident to her mother P.W. 4 Mst. Noji and brothers P.W. 5 Devilal and P.W. 3 Kishan. On this report, police registered the case for the offence under Ss. 366, 376 and 379, I.P.C. and started investigation. During investigation, the prosecutrix P.W. 13 Mst.Naru was got medically examined by P.W. 8 Dr. Goruram and her medically examination report is Ex.P/8, where no injury was found on her person and there was no evidence of fresh penetration and her age was mentioned above 18 years. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused persons in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 21-6-1997, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh framed charges against the accused persons in the following manner :- Name of accused persons Charges framed (1) Udailal 366/149, 376, 379, I.P.C. (2) Nanuram 366/149, 376/149, 379 or 379/149, I.P.C. (3) Suresh Chandra -do- (4) Mangilal -do- (5) Shankarlal -do- (6) Mohan -do-@@@ During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under S. 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused persons. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh through his judgment and order dated 6-2-1999 acquitted the accused-respondents-Shanker Lal,Mangilal,Suresh Chandra and Nanuram for the offence under Ss. 366/149, 376/149, 379, 379/149, I.P.C. and also acquitted the accused-appellants-Mohan for the offence under Ss. 376/149, 379/149, I.P.C. and Udailal for the offence under S. 376, I.P.C., but convicted accused-appellants-Mohan for the offence under S.366 and Udailal for the offence under Ss. 366 and 379, I.P.C. and sentenced them in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia :- 1. That since on the spot broken bangles were not found nor any signs of forcible rape were found on the spot and the prosecutrix P.W. 13 Mst. Naru did not receive any injury though she has admitted that she was dragged and got injuries on her buttock etc., therefore, this aspect of the prosecution i.e. she was raped by the accused-appellant-Udailal against her will, was not found favourable by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 2. That, however, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that so far as the accused-appellant-Mohan and Udailal are concerned, they have committed the offence of abduction of prosecutrix P.W. 13 Mst. Naru by deceitful means and thus he convicted and sentenced them in the manner as statedS above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 6-2-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, the accused-appellants have preferred appeal No. 117/99 and another Appeal No. 436/99 was filed by the State of Rajasthan. Appeal No.117/99 Mohan and another v. State of Rajasthan #
(3.) In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants-Mohan and Udailal :- (1) That prosecutrix P.W. 13 Mst. Naru had gone to Joganiya Mata temple on her own accord and without any resistance and she had tied her knot with accused-appellant-Udailal on her own consent and, therefore, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting the accused-appellants for the offence under S. 366, I.P.C. are erroneous one and the same are liable to be set aside. (2) That once the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that no offence of rape was committed, consequently, the offence under S. 366, I.P.C. should not have been held to be proved, especially when the prosecutrix P.W. 13 Mst. Naru was above 18 years of age. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 6-2-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh be set aside and the accused-appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appeal No. 436/99 State of Rajasthan v. Mohan and others #;