- (1.) WE have heard Mr.Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Ms.Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent -State.
(2.) THE instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 30.5.1989 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.50/1984 convicting the appellants as hereunder: - JUDGEMENT_940_TLRAJ0_2013.htm Whereas the appellant No.1 was released on probation on the condition of furnishing a surety as well as personal bonds, the other appellants were visited with sentence of imprisonment and fine. The prosecution case is traceable to a written report dated 16.8.1983 lodged with the Police Station, Manpur by one Mohar Singh, the father of the prosecutrix disclosing that his daughter Anil Kumari (prosecutrix) was to be examined by the SHO, Manpur in presence of the appellant No.2 in a case of theft on 13.8.1983. The informant alleged that prior thereto, on 11.8.1983, he (appellant No.2) had threatened her (prosecutrix) not to give such statement. The FIR recorded that in the intervening night of 12/13.8.1983, while the informant, alongwith his other family members, including the prosecutrix, were sleeping, he woke up at about 4 o'clock in the morning and found his daughter (prosecutrix) missing. When her whereabouts could not be traced, inspite of intense searches, he lodged the first information report suspecting the appellant No.2 to be involved. The police registered a case on the basis of the report and started investigation. Eventually, a charge -sheet was laid against the appellants under the aforementioned sections of law. They pleaded ''not guilty '', and therefore, trial followed. In the trial, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix Anil Kumari PW -1, her father Mohar Singh PW -2 and other witnesses, including the investigating officer. Noticeably, no medical witness was examined.
(3.) THE prosecutrix, in her statement on oath, stated that before the incident, an amount of Rs.27,700/ - of her father had been stolen, and that, it was suspected that the appellant No.2 Rambharosi was the culprit. He (appellant No.2) having scented it, threatened her not to testify against him. According to her, as the impression of the people of the locality with regard to culpability of appellant No.2 in the incident of theft was taking roots, he absconded from the village, and about a month thereafter, in the night of the incident, he alongwith Natha and Girwar forcibly abducted her, while she had gone out to ease herself. The prosecutrix stated that these people took her to the house of appellant No.2, where there were female inmates. Thereafter, she was taken therefrom to a place where Rajol, the father -in -law of the appellant No.2 and Dhansi appellant No.3, were present. Prior thereto, she alleged, that appellant No.2 Rambharosi committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She stated further that during her stay thereafter the appellant No.3 also committed the same offence. Subsequent thereto, according to her, she was brought to the Manpur Police Station, where she was pressurized by the police to give statement against her father, which she refused. According to her, she was detained in police custody for four days thereafter. According to her, subsequent thereto, she was taken by the police from place to place, and eventually, was returned to the custody of her father, Mohar Singh, whereafter she was medically examined. The prosecutrix admitted that the appellant No.2, prior to this incident, used to come to their house very often.;