- (1.) Suresh Kumar, the appellant herein, was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (First Track) Jhunjhunu who vide judgment dated October 23, 2001 convicted and sentenced him as under :- JUDGEMENT_1939_CRLJ_2007Html1.htm The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) It is the prosecution case that informant Ram Niwas (P.W. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Gudhagorji with the averments that on September 13, 1997 around 8 p.m. has wife Mala (fictitious name) went to attend call of nature. After some time his mother and aunt also went to attend call of nature. In the Johad accused Suresh Kumar came from behind of his wife and caught hold of her, torned her blouse, gagged her and committed rape on her. Hearing noise, when his mother and aunt reached at the spot they saw Suresh committing rape on Mala. When his mother intervened Suresh inflicted lathi blow on her person and fled away. On that report a case was registered under Sections 376, 354, 341 and 323, IPC and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu. Charges under Section 376(i) and 323, IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however, examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in the process of assailing the impugned finding made following submissions :- (i) There is great delay in lodging the report. The incident took place at 8 p.m. on September 13, 1997 however the report was lodged at 3 a.m. on September 14, 1997. Since there was previous enmity between the parties the delay in lodging the report demolishes the prosecution case. (ii) On the report of accused a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 323, 324 and 435, IPC was already registered therefore a false case was concocted against the accused. (iii) The prosecution case stands demolished from the statements of Sharvani (P.W. 4) who in her cross-examination admitted that she did not see the face of accused. (iv) Sharvani (P.W. 4) also admitted the fact of enmity with the accused and that FIR 152/97 was registered against them on July 7, 1997. (v) Dr. S. C. Vyas (P.W. 9) who examined the prosecutrix did not Find any injury on the person of prosecutrix.;