VYAS, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 27, 2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur, by which accused - Anda has been convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC, to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer fifteen days' additional simple imprisonment; under Section 376 IPC, 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's additional simple imprisonment; under Section 342, IPC 6 month's rigorous imprisonment; under Section 323, IPC, 6 months' R. I. and under Section 324 IPC, one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story is that on May 17, 2001 at 8. 30 p. m. , Kum. Dhani D/o Bhika by caste Garasia, R/o Parla-ka-Chaura, District Udaipur lodged a report (Ex. P/1) with the Police Station, Ogna, District - Udaipur that on May 15, 2001, at about 1. 00 p. m. while she was going to her house, for taking lunch, after carrying out the work in Drought Relief Operation, then near Mahura, Anda S/o Gala Garasia, R/o Padmavri and Bhagga S/o Dhana Garasia R/o. parla Chaura, stopped her in the way and Anda, by using force and pulling her hand and dragging her, started to say that he would keep her as wife at his house. It was further averred in the complaint that while she resisted and raised hue and cry, then Babu S/o Puna Gameti R/o Parla-ka-Chaura (who was met and supervising the Draught Relief Operation), Pitha S/o Ratta Garasia, R/o Kotiya-ka-Leva and her brother Dhula came to the place of occurrence and tried to rescue her, but both the aforesaid accused were not inclined to set her free and she was forcibly taken to the village of Anda and was confined to the house of anda. Anda committed rape with her against her wishes and, thereafter, Anda burnt the heels of the prosecutrix by fire, so that she may not escape. Anda also gave her beating. In the night, while Anda was sleeping, she came running from the house of Anda to her village and narrated the entire story to her father. Lastly, it was averred in the complaint that case may be registered and action may be taken against Anda and Bhagga Garasia, in accordance with law. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint FIR (Ex. P-6) under Sections 366, 342, 324, 323 and 376 IPC, was registered at Police Station, Ogana, District - Udaipur, against the accused persons and the Investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site inspection reports Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 were prepared, statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. ,were recorded, medical examination of Ku. Dhanni was conducted and injury report (Ex. P-4) was obtained, clothes of the victim Ku. Dhanni were seized and sealed vide Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8, the accused were arrested, the report of the examination of the victim was obtained from the Medical Jurist of R. N. T. Medical College & General Hospital, Udaipur vide Ex. P-11, accused Anda was examined and his medical report (Ex. P-12) was obtained, M. L. C. of the victim was got done and report (Ex. P-13) was obtained and X-ray report of Kum. Dhanni (Ex. P-16) was also obtained. The challan against accused Anda under Sections 366, 376, 342, 323 and 324, IPC and against accused Bhagga under Sections 366 and 341 IPC, was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and ultimately, the Sessions Judge transferred the case for decision to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses (P. W. 1 to P. W. 18) and produced 19 documents (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-19 ). In defence, the accused produced no defence. In the explanation under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the accused denied the charges and stated that they have been falsely implicated.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and examining the documents available on record, the learned trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to accused Bhagga and acquitted him from the offence under Sections 366 and 341, IPC, and convicted accused Anda under Sections 366, 376, 342, 323 and 324, IPC, against which he has preferred this Jail appeal. The Jail Appeal filed by Anda was received by Post. It was placed before the Court on 29. 05. 2002. On 29. 05. 2002, the appeal was admitted and the record was called for. Since the jail appeal was not represented by anyone, Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae. On 11. 08. 2004, Mr. R. S. Chundawat, and Mr. Manoj Singh Rathore, Advocates, filed power on behalf of accused Anda. Thereafter, the case was taken up and heard for final disposal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place on May 15, 2001, at 1. 00 p. m. , whereas the matter has been reported to the Police on May 17, 2001. Thus, the FIR has not been lodged promptly and there is a delay of two days in lodging the FIR and the prosecution has not been able to give a sufficient cause for this delay. ;