FAROOQ HASAN, J. - (1.) AN allegedly flirt of 20, appellant Tajukhan who in a broad day light, with his alleged last -loaded criminality apart from sex stress in excess over -powered the temptingly lonely prosecutrix of twenty, Geeta, is said to have raped her in hurried heat have come up before this Court against his conviction under Section 376, IPC and a sentence of 2. year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 50/ - (in default, 3 months' R I) by quibbling legalities about poor corroboration, consent and false implication to devalue their credibility.
(2.) THE broad facts bearing on the instant act of carnal assault will help delineate the controversy of culpability. This screaming victim in her first information lodged at police station Laxmangarh (Sikar) on 23rd January, 1980, alleged that she was out raged by Tajukhan at 12 in the noon having fulfilled his erotic sortie at height of heap of sand on the road in between Laxmangarh and Sanwali (which is said to have been situated a little beside the road and only about a few hundred meters away from the petrol pump at Laxmangarh where the prosecutrix is alleged to have been going for giving meal to her brother employed at Petrol Pump where she found that the accused who was hiding in the bushes with his cycle, obstructed her fortuitously and forcibly caught hold of her and when she tried to shout and make a hullabaloo, gagged her mouth with his muffler and tied her hands with his waist belt and then dragged her to some distance in a ditch, fell her on the ground and removed her Kirtle and then had full sexual intercourse with her. She further alleged to have make at resistance by her hands and legs in that process of resistance, she alleged, her kirtle torn out apart from her blouse on account of assault of Tajukhan who outraged her enought and at that time, she alleged, Buxaram Balai and Bhopal Singh came running and seeing them, Tajukhan run away to the opposite side with cycle riding on it after untying her hands and legs, with his muffler and waist -belt. She came to the police' station with her father to whom she is alleged to have narrated the story of incident, at 4 p.m. on 23 -1 -1980. On the aforesaid facts of incident given First Information, a case for the offence under Section 370, IPC was registered against the appellant. After usual investigation and arrest of the accused on 26 -1 -1980, the accused -appellant was challaned before the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions, Sikar. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. No defence was examined. The accused -appellant in his statement under Section 313. Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that whole case was full of false story at the instance of Dilsukh -owner of the Petrol Pump where the brother of the prosecutrix has been working and who is also Sarpanch of the village Panchayat. The accused also pleaded that he was employed at his petrol pump at one time and Dilsukh had not paid him any salary in lieu of his work done at the petrol pump in spite of his repeated demands so, Dilsukh was having animus with him because of a tea stall installed by him just near and close to the petrol pump.
(3.) LEARNED Sessions Judge held the accused -appellant guilty under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him as said in first para of this judgment. Hence this appeal.;