(1 of 4) [CRLA-486/1993]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 486/1993

State of Rajasthan

—-Appellant
Versus
Govind Lal son of Shri Motilal Luhar resident of Motipura Police
Station Parsoli District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, P.P.

For Respondent(s) : None present

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment

21/01/2020

The instant appeal under Section 378 (3) and (1) CrPC

has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the

judgment dated 08.07.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh in Special

Sessions Case No.6/1993, whereby the respondent accused

Govind Lal was acquitted of the charge under Section 376, 363,

366 and 342 IPC while being convicted for the offences under

Section 3 (1) (ix) of the SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) and

Section 354 IPC and sentenced as under :-

Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded
3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST Act Rigorous imprisonment of 9
months and a fine of Rs.100/-

and in default of payment of
fine, further to undergo simple
imprisonment of one month.

354 IPC Simple imprisonment of 6
months and a fine of Rs.100/-.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(Downloaded on 22/01/2020 at 08:47:33 PM)

(2 of 4) [CRLA-486/1993]

No one has appeared to argue the matter on behalf of

the respondent-accused. I have heard and considered the

arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and have

meticulously gone through the impugned judgment and the

record.

So far as the charge under Section 376 IPC is

concerned, the best evidence available to the prosecution is that

of the victim Mst. ‘K’ (P.W.2). She gave out her age to be 10 to 12

years and stated that the accused took her to Bhilwara on the

pretext that he would show her various places as well as a movie.

Her parents had gone to the well. She went away with the

accused, who took her to the house of Shankar and kept her

inside the house. There the accused misbehaved with her. He

threatened that she would be sold off. The accused then forced

himself on to her and subjected her to rape. She was kept at the

house of Shanker for 4 to 5 days. Balu came there and saved her

from the clutches of the accused. She was brought back to her

village. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by Roopa, the

mother of the victim, through a complaint filed in the Court of the

Judicial Magistrate Begun as late as on 02.06.1992. The date of

the incident stated in the complaint is 20 days earlier. In this

complaint, no allegation whatsoever has been levelled that the

accused subjected the victim to sexual assault. During the course

of investigation, the victim Mst. ‘K’ deposed before the

Investigating Officer that the accused offered her that he could

take her to Bhilwara for watching cinema. She agreed to this

suggestion. The accused went ahead. Her parents were not

present in the house, thus, she followed him. Both of them met at

the bus stand and boarded a bus going towards Bhilwara. They

(Downloaded on 22/01/2020 at 08:47:33 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-486/1993]

watched the movie and then went to the house of Shankar,

brother of the accused. They slept in one room, whereas,

Shankar and his wife slept in another. Govind misbehaved with

her, to which she objected. Govind threatened her of dire

consequences, on which, she succumbed to his pressure and

coercion. However, the girl admitted that she did not tell these

facts to anyone after she was brought back to his father’s house.

The victim was confronted with these material contradictions

appearing in her police statement vis-a-vis her sworn testimony

but she could not explain the same. In this view of the matter, I

am of the firm opinion that even if the highest case as set up in

the victim’s statement is accepted, the allegation that she was

subjected to rape by the accused is per se unreliable. It seems

that the only allurement, which the accused offered to her, was of

going to watch a movie, which both of them did. The victim

herself followed the accused and went to Bhilwara with him in a

public transport. No objection was made by her at any point of

time. The FIR was lodged after gross and undue delay of 20 days,

for which no explanation is forthcoming. In view of the above

factual scenario, I am of the firm opinion that the omission in the

belated FIR that the accused subjected the victim to sexual

assault is far too significant to be overlooked and hence, the

acquittal of the accused of the charge under Section 376 IPC as

recorded by the trial court is absolutely unassailable.

Regarding the charge under Section 363, 366 and 342

IPC, it is clear that the victim herself followed the accused while

accepting his offer to go to Bhilwara for watching a movie.

Therefore the necessary ingredients of the offences under Sections

(Downloaded on 22/01/2020 at 08:47:33 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-486/1993]

363, 366 and 342 are also not made out from the admitted

allegations of the prosecution.

In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of

the firm opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from

any infirmity or illegality warranting interference therein. Thus,

the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused

from the charges under Sections 376, 363, 366 and 342 IPC fails

and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

6-Pramod/-

(Downloaded on 22/01/2020 at 08:47:33 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)