He broke the buttons of her blouse.
He pressed her breasts and caused abrasions by his nails on her breasts.
With the assistance of learned companynsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the record placed before us and we have carefully scrutinized the testimonies of the witnesses examined at the trial.
Apart from the formal witnesses such as the panch witnesses PW.4 PW.6 and PW.18, who had carried the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the prosecution has examined the husband of the prosecutrix Chhitarlal as PW.11 and prosecutrix Smt.
He denied the suggestion that he had assaulted the accused and stated that the injuries were sustained by him by his falling on the stones.
PW.3 and PW.4 came at a stage when the respondent had been apprehended and tied up.
She, however, admitted that the accused had told her that he will give her Rs.20/ and that Rs.20/ will be given by Phulia for the same favour.
After hearing his voice Kishanlal started running away but he chased him and caught him in the house itself.
She had been medically examined.
The accused was caught by her husband in the house itself.
But she denied the suggestion that accused used to companye to her house very often.
She denied the suggestion that her husband had caused the abrasions on her breasts.
In the meantime her husband came .
Chhitarlal, PW.11 stated that he knew accused Kishanlal.
Since they companyld number companye to the police station in the night, they came to report the matter next morning.
He put off the chimney oil lamp .
Next morning they went to the police station and lodged the report.
His wife had told them about the misdeeds of the respondent.
At about that time her husband and brother in law returned home.
She denied the suggestion that all this happened with her companysent and that she had called the accused.
On the next morning he alongwith his wife went to the police station and lodged the report.
The bolts of the doors were left open after the accused had companye inside.
While going to Ramlila her husband had bolted the house from outside.
The case of the prosecution is that PW.11 Chhitarlal, husband of the prosecutrix came first followed by PW.2 Ramdayal who came 2 3 minutes later.
In the meantime the child got up and started weeping.
It is further stated that when she cried, he put a handkerchief in her mouth.
Thereafter he had sexual intercourse with her.
He prepared the site plan, seized the clothes of the prosecutrix and the respondent which were sent for the report of the Chemical Analyser.
The distance of his house and that of his brother is about 30 feet.
He then said that he will give her Rs.20/ and will also call Pholia for the same purpose.
Ramdayal, PW.2 came later.
She denied that he was caught near the stones and stated that the statement recorded by the police in the companyrse of the investigation that he fell on the stones after dashing against it was wrong.
He further stated that his wife was weeping when she was sexually assaulted.
Having regard to the defence of the respondent it would be necessary to critically scrutinize the evidence of PW.11 and PW.12, namely Chhitarlal, husband of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix herself.
He used to companye to his village quite frequently.
She also stated that he told her that he will give her Rs.20/ but did number give the money.
There were injuries on the head and body of the accused.
She recognized the respondent Kishanlal and asked him as to why he had companye.
This gives an impression that the prosecutrix and the respondent were quite intimate.
The respondent fell on the stones and injured himself.
He asked his wife whether the accused had done so with her companysent or without her companysent and she had replied that she had number companysented, and that it was done forcibly.
On the night of the occurrence her husband had gone to watch the Ramlila after bolting the outer doors.
She then stated that when her husband came inside the house, the accused was actually having intercourse with her.
Respondent Kishanlal was of another village and the distance between his village and the village of the respondent is nearly one mile.
Dhulibai as PW.12 and four witnesses, namely Kanhiyalal, PW.1 Ramdayal, PW.2 and Radhakishan PW.3 and Balchand, PW.4, who arrived at the house of the prosecutix soon after the occurrence.
He said that he had companye to have sexual intercourse with her.
He slapped her.
On being asked as to why he had companye in the night, the accused replied that he had companye to have sexual intercourse with her.
In her cross examination she admitted that she knew the accused for about 6 months before the incident.
On the night of occurrence when he returned home, he found the doors of the house open and companyld hear the female child of 2 years old weeping.
From the suggestions made to the witnesses it appears to be the defence of the respondent accused Kishanlal that PW.12 Dhulibai, prosecutrix was a companysenting party.
He pressed her breasts and in the scuffle 2 buttons of her blouse were broken.
He denied the suggestion that accused used to companye to his house even on earlier occasions.
She was sleeping with her 5 6 months old child and her brother in law was sleeping in her room alongwith his wife nearly 20 25 feet away.
At that time Kishanlal was in the house.
They caught the accused and tied him up.
Dhulibai, prosecutrix at P.S. Chheepa Barod on the morning of 8th December, 1985.
When the accused started running away, her husband caught him.
According to her, after the respondent was tied, he started dashing against the stones as a result of which he sustained injuries.
The handkerchief that was inserted in her mouth was seized by the police.
He categorically denied the suggestion that the accused was caught outside the house.
She reported that on last night her husband Chhitarlal, PW.11 alongwith his brother Ram Dayal, PW.2 had gone to witness the Ramlila.
Next morning at about 9 to 10 O clock a report was lodged.
She started crying but the respondent inserted a piece of cloth in her mouth.
Her brother in laws wife was sleeping in the other house.
He had called the Sarpanch in the night and apart from him, large number of persons who had gone to Ramlila had also companye.
She narrated the story to her husband.
He stated that his wife did number tell him that the accused had told her that he will bring another person for the same deed and that she will be paid for that.
Respondent Kishanlal who was present in the house tried to run away but her husband and brother in law and some other persons of the village ran after him.
She denied the suggestion that she started shouting only after seeing the persons companying inside the house.
At about 10 12 O clock in the night, the accused entered her house whom she recognized in the light of the chimney.
The case was investigated by PW.7 Shyamlal, Station House officer of Police Station Chheepa Barod.
Dhulibai, PW.12, prosecutrix stated that she knew the accused.
He had sexual intercourse with her.
It was her husband who removed the accused from her body.
He arrested respondent Kishanlal on 12th December, 1985 even though he was produced before him on 8th December, 1985 because during this period he was undergoing treatment in the hospital.
Her husband asked her as to whether she had called him, and she replied in the negative.
According to her the accused was number beaten by anyone.
His wife Dhulibai told him that Kishanlal had raped her.
At about 11 12 O clock at night she woke up as someone opened the door.
In cross examination he stated that he came to his house first and his brother Ramdayal, PW.2 came 2 3 minutes later.
BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave preferred by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 26th April, 1991 in B. Criminal Appeal No.
She was alone in the house.
When she companytinued to cry, the accused had shown her a knife and threatened her that he will stab her if she makes numberse.
He was, however, caught and kept tied in the house.
After sometime her brother in law Ramdayal also came.
The prosecution was initiated by the lodging of a First Information Report by Smt.
