S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) ACCUSED Mohanram has been convicted under section 376, IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's like imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur by his judgment dated Februaiy 10, 1983. The accused has filed this jail appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.
(2.) AT about 11 a m. on 27. 8. 82, the prosecutrix Mst. Dhani (P. W 1) aged about 20 years went to her field to bring grass. The field is situated at a little distance from her town Jaswantgarh. While she was collecting grass in the field, the accused came and addressed some words to her. The prosecutrix gave no reply. The accused then threw her down in the field. She tried to raise cries but the accused put his hand on her mouth. Thereafter, he loosened his dhoti, put off the underwear and committed rape on her After committing rape, he ran away. She raised cries, P. W. 7 Shyamsunder, who was working in the field nearby came to her. He saw the accused running away. While putting resistance, the victim received some injuries and the lac bangles, she was wearing, got broken. She came to her house and narrated the incident to her husband and mother-in-law. She was taken to police station, Jaswantgarh, where she lodged written report, Ex. P. /l of the occurrence at about 8. p m. on the same day. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The medical examination of the victim was made on 28. 8. 82 by P. W. 4 Dr. Pushpa Bhargava. She found an abrasion on her left cheek. Blood was also found coming out through vagina. The accused was medically examined on the same day by P. W. 5 Dr. Bhimsingh. An abrasion was noticed on his fore-head and he was found capable of doing sexual intercourse. The clothes of the victim and the accused were also seized and sealed. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur:, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Judge framed a charge under section 376, I. P. C. against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. He pleaded that there were strained relations between him and the family of the prosecutrix due to some dispute over a right of way in his field. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, while in defence no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge held the charge duly brought home to the accused. He was, consequently, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused has taken this appeal. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully. In assailing the conviction the first contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae is that it was a case of nil evidence. The accused was convicted solely on the testimony of prosecutrix Mst. Dhani (P. W. I ). But there were various circumstances to discard her testimony. It was argued that there was no corroboration of her story of rape. The medical evidence did not support her. Even if, it is taken that theaccused had committed sexual intercourse with her, the circumstances convincingly point out that she was a consenting party to it. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the court-below and submitted that there was unimpeached testimony of the prosecutrix against the accused. No reasons were there to discard or dismiss her testimony. There is corroboration from independent source to support the prosecutrix. P. W. 7 Shyamsunder had seen the accused throwing her down at the place of occurrence. The medical evidence was also there to support her to some extent. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration. Needless to say, that in case of rape, it is the testimony of the prosecutrix, which plays a vital and decisive role. The prosecutrix P. W. 1 Mst. Dhani deposed that at about 11. a. m. on the day of occurrence, when she was uprooting the grass in her field, the accused came and told her that he had received some massage from her parents. She gave no reply. The accused came nearer and felled her down. She tried to put resistance and raise cries. The accused placed his one hand on her mouth. Thereafter, he loosened his dhoti, put off his underwear and inserted his penis in her private parts. She tried to struggle but was over powered by him. After committing rape, the accused ran away. She raised cries. Hearing her cries, P. W. 7 Shyamsunder came to her field. She further stated that in the struggle, she received some injuries and the lac bangales, she was wearing, got broken. The accused also received an injury on his fore-head by the ring, she was wearing in her finger. She came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother-in law. Thereafter, she went to police station and lodged written report, Ex. P. 1 of the occurrence. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. But nothing could be elicited from her which may help the accused. She denied that there were strained relations between the accused and her family. There are no infirmities in her statement. Her testimony is free from suspicion and above the board. There is nothing to put her testimony at a discount. It is difficult to conceive that she would foist a false charge of rape on the accused. There are then, various circumstances, which afford materia! corroboration to her testimony. P. W. 7 Shyamsunder, a boy of 18 years in age, deposed that when he was working in his field situate nearby the place of occurrence, he heard the cries of the prosecutrix. He saw theaccused, catching hold of her and felling her down in her field. He got afraid and went away. There are no reasons to discard or disbelieve his testimony It does not appear that he has any grudge against the accused, so as to falsely implicate him. His testimony affords a valuable corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix.
(3.) THE prosecutrix deposed that in the resistance, she put to the accused, her lac bangles, which she was wearing, got broken and the hair-pin slipped down. THE broken pieces of bangles and hair-pin lying scattered, were recovered from the place of occurrence by the investigating officer P. W. 9 Narain Singh. THEy were seized and sealled. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by P. W. 4 Dr. Mrs. Bhargava. The report prepared by her is Ex. P/6. She deposed that she noticed one abrasion on the left cheek of the prosecutrix which could be caused by a teeth bite. The prosecutrix also stated that while she was putting res istance, the accused sustained an injury on his fore-head with the ring, she was wearing in one of her fingers. This fact is again corroborated by the medical evidence. P. W. 5 Dr. Bhimsingh, who medically examined the accused, deposed that he noticed one linear abrasion on his fore-head caused by some blunt object like ring. His report is Ex. P/8. In cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that while struggling to save her honour, the shirt of the accused was torn by her. The accused was arrested on the next day of occurrence with the same torn shirt on his body. The right sleeve and front side of the shirt were found torn. It was seized and sealed by the police vide seizure memo Ex. P/5. There is thus ample corroboration from various independent sources to support the prosecutrix's version of rape. ;