Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) The accused appellant (for short the accused) calls in question the propriety of the judgment dated October 24, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neem Ka Thana (Sikar) whereby the accused in Sessions Case No. 7/97, was convicted and sentenced under section 376 IPC to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment).
(2.) The facts necessary to unfold the controversy involved in the case, briefly stated are that Nathu Ram (PW 3) instituted written FIR (Ex.R 1) with the Police Station Khandela (Sikar) in the intervening night of September 3 and September 4, 1996 at about 00.30 a.m. with the averments that on Sept. 3, 1996 when his wife Basanti was in the forest area alongwith cattle, she was raped at about 6.00 p.m. by Iqrammuddin (accused). Hearing her hue and cry Kalu and Jhabar (PW 4) reached at the spot. His wife Basanti sustained injuries and one of her gold ornament has been taken away by the accused. Case under section 376 and 379 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Charge sheet was filed after completion of the investigation and the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge Neem Ka Thana. The accused denied the charge framed against him under section 376 IPC and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded that the witnesses had enmity with him. He had a quarrel with Bodu who is father in law of Basanti who is lady of loose character (Badmash Aurat). Amir (DW 1) was produced by the accused as a defence witness. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above.
(3.) Mr. Reshma Bharagava, learned counsel appearing for the accused assailed the finding of the learned trial court, raising various pleas which may be summarised thus- (a) Delay of seven hours in lodging FIR not explained. (b) Somnath constable who allegedly carried packets A, C, D, FG vide letter dated November 19, 1996 was not examined. (c) Endorsement over Ex.R 11, Ex.P 12 and Ex.P 13 does not bear signatures of Maikhana incharge. (d) 'Nallah' where the prosecutrix was raped, was not shown in site plan (Ex.P 3). (e) The prosecution has not proved that semen' detected on lahanga or in vaginal swab and smear, was of the same group as that of accused. (f) There are improvements and material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and they could not have been relied upon. (g) Kalu, Somnath and father in law of Basanti could have been the best witnesses but they were withheld. (h) Statement of defence witnesses Amir Ali (DW 1) was not considered. (i) The trial court disbelieved the statement of Basanti with regard to theft of ornament by the accused, therefore her statement with regard to rape also ought to be disbelieved in view of doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.;