PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2008-5-87
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JAIPUR)
Decided on May 22,2008

PAPPU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THE condemned prisoners Pappu and Pintu have impugned the judgments and orders dated 27. 5. 2003 and 28. 6. 2002 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City whereby both the appellants Pappu and Pintu have been convicted in the offence under Section 376 (2)g of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Two separate criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants against the aforesaid judgments but since both these appellants pertain to one F. I. R. No. 210/2001 of Police Station Bamanwas Distt. Swai Madhopur registered in the offence under Section 376 and 323 IPC, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE prosecution story as unfolded by prosecutrix PW/1 (name withheld by us) in her written report Ex. P/1 succinctly, runs as under: That on 29th September, 2001 at about 7. 30 PM, prosecutrix, a girl of 15 years of age, daughter of Shri Nathu Lal took her niece Vandana from her house to Kohra (Nala) to answer her (Vandana's) natural call and after answering the natural call, while way back home reached at the back of old Panchayat Bhawan, accused appellants Pappu and Pintu came there and Pappu caught hold of her forcibly. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix cried, the accused-appellants gaged her mouth and dragged her near to a Kund and there made her to lie on the ground. It is further alleged that they broke the string of her Kadia she was wearing and thereafter both the accused-appellants Pappu and Pintu in their hurried heat ravished her one after another in succession and on interception of Giriraj and Deendayal fled away after fulfilling their erotic sortie. The prosecutrix somehow restlessly reached her home where she narrated the entire incident to her family members and on 30th September, 2001, went with her father to Police Station, Bamanwas where she lodged the F. I. R. , Ex. P/1. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the site-plan Ex. P/3, seized one string vide Ex. P/4, torn Braassiere vide Ex. P/5, got the prosecutrix medically examined to ascertain the rape and determine her age, arrested the accused appellants and after usual investigation, submitted the police report in the competent Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge for the offence under Section 376 (2) g of IPC, and read over to the accused appellants who denied the guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to further its version, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in all. The defence of the appellants is that they were innocent, had no complicity with the crime and have been falsely implicated in this case. Two witnesses DW/1 Nathu Lal and DW/2 Kamlesh have been examined in defence. After the trial, the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as indicated herein above.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel Shri S. K. Gupta, appearing for the accused appellant Pappu, learned counsel Mr. A. K. Gupta appearing on behalf of accused appellant Pintu as also learned Public Prosecutor Shri Ashivini Sharma, considered the submissions made at the Bar and scanned the impugned judgment, prosecution and defence evidence and relevant material available on record. Albeit the appellants have assailed both their conviction and sentence in the memo of appeal but during the course of hearing in the Court, learned counsel Mr. S. K. Gupta and Mr. A. K. Gupta appearing on behalf of the appellants have focused their submissions only on the quantum of sentence and urged that the accused Pappu was 19 years and Pintu was 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. They have been in custody for more than 5 years. The sentence awarded to them is too harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence looking to their tender age, minimum sentence of 7 years could be awarded to them which shall serve the ends of justice. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment in toto. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.