DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant as also learned public prosecutor.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred by accused Sawai Singh @ Sawai @ Khetu assailing the judgment dated 21 October, 2016 whereby learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu has convicted him for the offences punishable under section 323 and 376 read with 511 IPC. Learned trial court has awarded one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 376/511 IPC, in default the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has stated that there is material contradiction on various points in FIR Exhibit P-1 and the statements given by prosecution witnesses. So called eye witness who was driving camel cart nearby the scene of occurrence has not been examined. It is not proved whether prosecutrix returned from the school when she was allegedly ravished or had gone to graze the goats. She further submits that the accused has been falsely implicated because of enmity on account of dispute between the parties about the boundaries of agricultural fields. All these contradictions and lacunas in prosecution story have been ignored by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. She thus submits judgment impugned may accordingly be quashed and set aside while allowing the appeal.;