MAAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23. 04. 1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "ipc" ). For offence under Section 366 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For the offence under Section 376 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo a sentence of six months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that on 18. 11. 1985, Mr. Pyarelal (P. W. 2) lodged an oral report wherein he claimed that "mother-in-law and sister-in-law of his daughter, Kajori aged about fifteen years, had come to his house in order to take back his daughter to her matrimonial home. This morning, Karjori was supposed to gop alongwith them. Kajori went to meet her friend at 7:00 PM. But, she did not return at night. I and my wife, Gulab, went to look for Kajori. We asked Geeta as to the whereabouts of Kajori, but she told us that Karjori is not with her. We have searched her the entire night and even this morning. Only recently, we have discovered her in room belonging to one Mr. Maan Singh S/o Pratap Singh Rajput. The room is situated in Sunder Nagar. Kajori is all alone there. She is locked from outside. I talked to her through the window and Kajori has informed me that yesterday when she was going with Geeta, she met Maan Singh on the road. She further stated that he forcefully took her away to his room and at night he had sexual intercourse against her wish. She further told him that in the morning, around 12' o clock, Maan Singh has locked her in the room and has gone somewhere. Because she was frightened of Maan Singh, she could not do anything. " On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 178/1985 (Ex. P. 5) was chalked out for offences under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 IPC. Subsequently, the appellant was put on trial for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted eleven documents. The defence did not examine any witness, but did submit one document - Pyare Lal's statement recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, "cr. P. C. " ). IN the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed that "the prosecutrix was known to him. IN the evening, the prosecutrix, of her own volition, came to him at his room and told him that her in-laws have come and they are planning to take her to her matrimonial home. However, she does not wish to go to her matrimonial home. She, therefore, requested that he should take her away somewhere else. At night, with Kajori's consent, he thrice had sexual intercourse with her. On the next day, at the request of the prosecutrix, he locked her in the room, as she did not want her parents to discover her, and went away in order to make arrangements for some money. IN the afternoon, he came to his room to give lunch to the prosecutrix and then left the room for meeting his friends. IN the evening, he came to know that Kajori had been recovered from his room by the police. Subsequently, he was arrested. Karjori wanted to give her testimony in his favour. However, the Public Prosecutor told her that in case she gives her statement before the Court as she had stated to the police, the accused would be acquitted. " Notwithstanding the explanation given by the appellant, but relying upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documents submitted by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, the offence of rape is a dasteredly act not only against the victim, but also the society at large. Unquestionably the offence leaves the victim psychologically scared and emotionally shattered. But, the conviction in a criminal case cannot be based on the heinousness of the crime. A conviction has to be based on the objective assessment of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The objectivity of a judicious mind cannot be blinded by the fact that the prosecutrix alleges that her honour has been defiled. Thus, while examining the evidence, a holistic view of the evidence is essential.