MADAN, J. - (1.) THE aforesaid three appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 11. 02. 1992, passed by Shri Mahesh Singh Tanwar, Special Judge (Atrocities Court), Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Session Case No. 31/90, State Vs. Khajan Singh and others, whereby he convicted each of the accused-appellant for offence under section 498-A IPC and sentenced each of them to under go one years' rigorous imprisonment and- fine of Rs. 1,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was ordered to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. THE learned trial court however, acquitted the accused Khajan Singh for the offences under Sections 376 and 406 IPC and other two accused Sikandar and Smt. Jethi for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Since these appeals arise out of the same judgment and are connected matters, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) APPEAL No. 161/92 has been filed by Smt. Radha through the State for enhancement of sentence of the accused awarded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur convicting and sentencing the accused persons as indicated above for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Appeal No. 57/92 has been filed by all the three accused/appellants, namely, Khajan Singh, Sikandar and Smt. Jethi against their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Appeal No. 455/92 has also been filed by the complainant Smt. Radha through the State against the acquittal of the three accused persons for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and accused Khajan Singh for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above three appeals, briefly stated are, that the prosecution case started on a written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix Smt. Radha on 26. 6. 1988, in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur alleging therein that she was married according to Hindu rituals to accused Sikandar son of Khajan Singh on 29. 11. 1987 at Jodhpur. Accused No. 1 to 3, namely, Khajan Singh son of Sanwalji and Smt. Jethi W/o Khajan Singh were also cited as co- accused alongwith her husband Sikandar accused in the said complaint. She has alleged in her complaint to the police that her father gave all good presents at the time of solemnisation of her marriage with accused No. 3 Sikandar and it was solemnised in best possible manner as per status of the family. It was further alleged in her complaint that on 17th of March, 1988 while she was travelling with her husband and other members of her in-laws' family in the First Class Compartment of the train, the father- in-law of the complainant accused Khajan Singh asked his son Sikandar (husband of Radha) to go in another adjoining compartment alongwith his mother Smt. Jethi (wife of Khajan Singh), while Khajan Singh accused No. 1 with some evil intentions remained in the compartment in which the prosecutrix was travelling. After some time when Smt. Radha woke up, she saw that her husband was not in the cabin and accused Khajan Singh, her father-in-law, was bolting the door from inside and tried to outrage her modesty and he committed rape on her. She has further alleged in her complaint that apart from the said incident there were also demands of dowry from her in-laws and it was not possible for her parents to fulfill the demands of dowry. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur forwarded the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahaman-dir for investigation. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for trial of the accused. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused Khajan Singh for offence under Sections 376/406 and 498-A IPC against co-accused Sikandar and Smt. Jethi for offence under Section 406 IPC, which were read-over to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) DURING Trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of its case while the accused persons examined two witnesses in their defence. After trial the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicted and sentenced the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498-AIC, as indicated above, while acquitting appellant Khajan Singh for offence under Sections 406 and 376 IPC and other two accused, namely Sikandar and Smt. Jethi for offence under Section 406 IPC, as indicated above. In this case the marriage was solemnised between the parties, i. e. the prosecutrix Smt. Radha and Sikandar son of Khajan Singh on 29. 11. 1987, while the alleged incident of committing rape on the prosecutrix took place on 17. 03. 1988. The complaint was filed before the concerned Magistrate on 20. 06. 1988. All the accused were on bail during trial and their sentence was suspended during the appeal, by this Court on 11. 03. 1992. The law is well settled on the subject by the Apex Court of the country that the findings of acquittal should ordinarily not be lightly interferred with until there are sufficient circumstances justifying contrary view for reversing the said findings to that of hypothesis of guilty. In Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1), the Apex Court held: "presumption of innocence of the accused person is further reinforced by his acquittal "by the trial Court and the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration. There must be compelling and substantial reasons for the Appellate Court to come to a conclusion different from that of a trial Judge. " Law has also been well settled by the Apex Court of the country with regard to the proposition that where there are two alternate charges in the same trial, the fact that the accused is acquitted of one of them, will not prevent the conviction on the other. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act can be called in aid in support of this proposition. The proposition finds support from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of State of M. P. Vs. Veereshwar Rdo Agnihotri (2) and Tara Chand Vs. State of Maharashtra ;