HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 175 / 1990
Mahaveer Singh s/o Sh Hanuman Singh, b/c Rajput, Resident of
Khunkhuna, Police Station Khunkhuna Distt:Nagaur.
State of Rajasthan.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Manoj Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.OP Rathi, PP.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
By way of the instant appeal, the appellant accused
Mahaveer Singh has approached this Court for challenging the
judgment dated 8.6.1990 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana in Sessions Case
No.90/87 whereby, the appellant was convicted for the offence
fine of Rs.100/-; in default to further undergo one month’s R.I.
Facts in brief are that Shri Mohan Ram lodged a report at
P.S. Khunkhuna on 24.6.1987 alleging inter alia that his wife
Smt.P (hereinafter referred to as ‘the victim’) had gone to
agricultural field for weeding on 21.6.1987. She was drinking
water in the hut built at the field when the appellant Mahaveer
Singh came around ; dragged the lady into the hut and raped her.
(2 of 6)
She raised hue and cry on which, the complainant’s niece Sushri
Sugna who was grazing goats in the nearby field and two other
ladies named Amri and Shanti rushed there. On seeing them,
accused Mahaveer Singh left the victim and ran away. The victim
grappled with Mahaveer Singh in order to save herself from the
sexual assault and received scratches from the nails of Mahaveer
Singh on her neck and face in the process. On receiving the
information, the complainant went to the field and saw his wife
lying there in a dishevelled condition. His father was a person of
old traditions and fearing societal outrage, the matter could not be
reported immediately. However, the complainant’s conscience did
not let him rest upon which, he reported the matter to the police.
On the basis of this report, an FIR No.49/1987 came to be
registered at P.S. Khunkhuna for the offence under Section 376
IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation, medical
examination of the victim was conducted at Bangur Hospital. She
was found suffering from sub-conjectival haemorrhage on the
eyes and abrasions on both sides of her neck. The accused
appellant, upon being medically examined was found fit for sexual
intercourse. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
him for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The case was
committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana
for trial where charge was framed against the accused appellant
for the offence under Section 376 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses
in support of its case. The accused, upon being questioned under
that he did not rape the victim. The victim’s sheep used to enter
into his field and caused damage. He complained to the victim’s
father-in-law Rugha Ram and due to this grudge, a false case of
rape was foisted against him. Three witnesses were examined in
defence. The trial Court proceeded to discard the defence theory ;
accepted the evidentiary worth of the prosecution witnesses and
convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. Hence, this
Shri Manoj Purohit, learned counsel representing the accused
appellant vehemently urged that the allegations levelled by the
victim in her evidence are false and fabricated. Her testimony was
not corroborated by the medical evidence and the site inspection
plan. The hut where the alleged incident is said to have happened
was totally dilapidated and it is totally unlikely that the victim
could be dragged thereunder and raped. He further urged that it is
a clear case of false implication owing to prior enmity which has
been duly established by defence evidence and urged that the
appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge levelled against
him, while setting aside the impugned judgment.
Per contra, learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the victim’s
testimony is absolutely natural and truthful. The complainant had
no occasion to falsely implicate the accused because there did not
exist any kind of enmity between the parties whatsoever. The
defence theory of false implication is totally fictitious and
conjectural. It cannot be accepted that merely because a trivial
quarrel arose between the parties on account of goats entering in
(4 of 6)
the agricultural field, the reputation of the victim would be put at
stake by foisting a false case of rape. The allegations made by the
victim are duly and fully corroborated by the medical evidence as
well as evidence of child witness Sugna. He thus urged that the
impugned judgment does not warrant interference and the appeal
should be dismissed in entirety.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned
judgment as well as the original record.
The victim has given clinching evidence against the appellant
alleging that he subjected her to rape in her own agricultural field.
She stated that she put up a struggle to save herself from the
appellant’s vicious attack and received numerous injuries in the
process. These allegations are duly corroborated by medical report
Ex.P/4 which was proved by the medical officer PW5 Dr.Kailash
Chandra. The haemorrhages noticed on both the eyes and the
abrasions noticed on the victim’s neck were 3-4 days old. The
incident happened on 21.6.1987 and the victim was medically
examined on 24.6.1987. Thus, the injuries noted in the medical
report positively and beyond all manner of doubt corroborates the
victim’s statement. Her evidence also garners corroboration from
the statement of child witness Sushri Sugna who was grazing
goats in the nearby field. She clearly stated that on hearing the
cries of the victim, she rushed to the field where she saw the
victim lying prone in the hut and the accused running therefrom.
The defence story that the accused had been falsely implicated
because of the dispute which existed between the parties owing to
(5 of 6)
the goats of the victim causing damage in the field of the accused
appellant and when he lodged a protest thereof with the
complainant party who lodged a false report as a result thereof, is
far fetched and unbelievable. The defence witnesses DW1 Lichman
Ram, DW2 Rampal and DW3 Ramakishan did not utter a single
word about the defence theory.
In view of the discussion made herein above, I am of the
firm opinion that the evidence given by the victim that the
accused appellant subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse in
her field is clinching and is corroborated by the statement of the
child witness Sugna as well as the medical evidence and meets
the requisite standard of proof beyond all manner of doubts so as
to uphold the appellant’s conviction. This Court is least convinced
by the defence counsel’s argument that the appellant was falsely
implicated in this case. The trial Judge duly and meticulously
appreciated the evidence available on record and reached to the
only possible and apropos conclusion regarding the appellant
having subjected the victim to forcible sexual intercourse. The
impugned judgment dated 8.6.1990 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana ex-facie does
not suffer from any infirmity or shortcoming either factual or legal
warranting interference therein. The appellant was awarded the
minimum sentence of seven years for the ghastly offence and
hence the same does not warrant any further reduction.
Resultantly, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is
hereby rejected. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are
cancelled. He shall forthwith surrender before the trial Court for
(6 of 6)
serving out the remainder of the sentences failing which the trial
Court shall take requisite steps for apprehending the appellant.
Record be returned forthwith.