Mahaveer Singh vs State on 16 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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.

—-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan.

—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Manoj Purohit.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.OP Rathi, PP.

__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
16/11/2017

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

under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years R.I. and a

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)
[CRLA-175/1990]

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and claimed
(3 of 6)
[CRLA-175/1990]

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

appeal.

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)
[CRLA-175/1990]

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)
[CRLA-175/1990]

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)
[CRLA-175/1990]

serving out the remainder of the sentences failing which the trial

Court shall take requisite steps for apprehending the appellant.

Record be returned forthwith.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

S.Phophaliya/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *