MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01/11/2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Sirohi (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.05/2007, convicting and sentencing appellant -accused Shiv Lal under Section 376(1) of IPC as under - Under Section 376(1) IPC life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000/ - and in default further to undergo for one year's simple imprisonment.
(2.) The story of the prosecution as dwelt in the FIR reads as under : - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... and this FIR has been registered on 13/01/2007 at 11.45 a.m. under Section 376 of IPC, culmination of the investigation has resulted in a charge -sheet against the appellant -accused. After due trial, the learned trial court has convicted appellant -accused and sentenced him for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/ - and further to undergo one year simple imprisonment in event of default.
(3.) Heard the arguments advanced, learned counsel for the appellant -accused has vehemently contended that the learned trial court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment because the evidence has not been properly appreciated. Accused -appellant and his wife were not having good relations and the complainant wife was living in her parental house after abandoning the house of the appellant, relations between accused and his complainant wife were bitter and all four kids were residing with her husband -father Shivlal and the complainant was adamant to procure the custody of the kids in any manner and acting upon that machination, false FIR was lodged after instigating minor daughter. Appellant -accused was undergoing treatment after major surgery of his spinal cord and was not in a position to cohabit, so allegations of alleged rape are concocted and false. There are vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and prosecution has not been able to prove its case. Relying upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Phool Chand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2014, Cri.L.J.4789, Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State, 2011 Cr.L.r. (SC) 901, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Keshar Singh, 2015(4) RLW 2869 (SC), Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, K.Venkateshwarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 73 and Rahim Beg & Anr. vs. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 759, learned counsel has contended that false FIR was lodged, in order to create pressure to procure the kids and it has got no substance of truth so, the accused -appellant is liable to be acquitted, in the end, learned counsel has contended in alternate that learned trial Court has passed sentence of life imprisonment, which is not at all just because the appellant is a sick person and he is to look after his family and there is no reason to keep the appellant behind the bars for whole of his life. Relying upon the following judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of Yogendra Singh @ Bablu & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.)649 and in case of Sunil @ Dinkli vs. State of Rajasthan, 2015(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj) 1531, the sentence for life imprisonment may be modified and converted to already undergone period or to lesser years other than to life imprisonment. Learned public prosecutor has argued that there is no such flaw in the impugned judgment. The appellant - accused has raped his own minor daughter for several times and victim has herself narrated all these facts and crime endured and perperated upon her, in testimony, there is no contradiction whatsoever in the evidence produced by the prosecution and the factum of rape has also been established by medical evidence, so, there is no reason of any feebleness and prosecution has succeeded to prove and establish its case and trial Court has rightly convicted the accused, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is also not worthy to be reduced because a minor daughter of 13 years has repeatedly been raped by his own father, which is very grave and serious offence and such accused should not be given any kind of leniency and appeal is liable to be dismissed because, it has got no merit.;