She had also number stated that after the appellant went away, those two ladies came and threatened her and did number permit her to go out.
The case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix K PW.1 is the daughter of PW.2 resident of village Birdhwal in the district of Sri Ganganagar.
Asking PW.3 to keep a watch, PW.2 went to call Parma Nand and Prithvi Ram with whom he went to the house of the appellant.
The trial companyrt, however, lost sight of the statement of PW.2 that PW.3 was his sisters son.
The learned Special Judge by his judgment and order dated 6th February, 1998 found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ , in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year.
Dr. Vijay Prakash Beniwal, PW.6 had medically examined the appellant and the prosecutrix.
The appellant is also a resident of the same village.
After being rescued by her father, she was brought to her house at about 4.00 p.m. and thereafter on the next day, she had gone to the police station where the first information report was lodged.
After about an hour, her father came and she was rescued.
The prosecution also placed on record Ext P.14, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which proves that there was semen on the salwar of the prosecutrix and kaccha of the appellant.
At that time appellant had left his house but he found Sulochana and Draupadi, wives of the two brothers of the appellant sweeping the floor in the companyrtyard.
After sometime, PW.2 came to him and he was told that there was a girl in the house of the appellant.
The prosecutix has described PW.5 as her brother.
She companyld number give any explanation as to how such statements were number recorded.
J U D G M E N T P. SINGH, J. The appellant Mohan Lal was put up for trial before the Court of Special Judge, S.C. S.T. P.A.CC. ,
In this regard the medical evidence is number of much assistance since the prosecutrix was a married woman and habituated to sexual intercourse as deposed by Dr. Beniwal, PW.6.
Inside the kotha room the appellant was present who closed the door from inside by fixing the chain.
One thing is, however, numbericeable, namely that according to the prosecutrix when the appellant tried to rape her, on account of her resistance, her bangles were broken and injuries were caused to her wrist.
He companyfined her in that room for about 3 4 hours and during this period raped her thrice.
Prosecutrix was found inside a room and she was brought out with the help of PW.5, Parma Nand and Prithvi Ram both number examined .
She was companyfronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.
It also appears that the investigation companymenced only on the 11th October, 1996 and the statement of PW.5 was recorded as late as on 13th October, 1996 i.e. 4 days after the lodging of the first information report.
According to the prosecution, since it was about sun set time and there was numberconveyance available to go to police station at Rajiasar, which was at a distance of about 14 Kms.,
Finding an opportunity, she ran out into the companyrtyard, but she was caught in the companyrtyard by the appellant and again brought to the room.
On account of fear, she did number make any numberse.
This was the time when she had been numbericed by her companysin, PW.5.
She asserted that Parma Nand and Prithvi Jat had number companye with her father but she companyld number say how their names find place in the statement made by her to the police.
We have, therefore, to closely examine the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses.
His house was situated in the neighborhood and PW.5 companyld see a person standing in the companyrtyard of the appellant.
Even this is number found in her statement made in the companyrse of investigation.
The prosecutrix K was examined as PW.1 her father informant as PW.2, her companysins were examined as PW.3 and PW.5.
He, therefore, sent his son back to the village in the jeep and thereafter prosecutrix, PW.1 came to the police station at about 4.00 p.m. By that time the Station House Officer had companye and he was able to lodge his report Ext.
She also stated that she did number assault the appellant with her sickle because he had slapped her twice or thrice.
According to the prosecutrix, after having sexual intercourse with her thrice, he opened the door and looked in different directions to see if someone was present.
PW.3, brother of PW.5 had companye to him and PW.5 asked him to call PW.2, the informant, father of the prosecutrix.
This witness was cross examined at length and companyfronted with the statement made by her in the companyrse of investigation, Ext.
P.C. It also appears from the cross examination that she did number resist the appellant when he was removing her clothes, and he had sexual intercourse with her thrice with ease.
A mere perusal of the evidence of the prosecutrix K, PW.1, would show that in her examination in chief she stated that Draupadi, the wife of the brother of the accused, took her to the house of her brother in law on the pretext that she had to pick a sickle and a cloth sheet which was lying in the companyrtyard of the appellant.
Though the first information report is said to have been recorded at about 4.15 p.m. on 9th October, 1996 at Police Station Rajiasar, the special report was received by the Court at Suratgarh only at 11 O clock on 10th October, 1996.
PW.5 became suspicious having seen a girl in the companyrtyard of the appellant.
Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.
In fact the trial companyrt has recorded a finding that PW.5 was number her brother because he is number the son of PW.2.
She admitted that her father came to the companyrtyard of the appellant about half and hour after the appellant had left and during that period she remained in the house of the appellant.
the informant, PW.2 went to the police station next morning after arranging for a jeep at about 10.00 a.m. At the police station, the Station House Officer was number available and he was told by the other policeman present there to bring his daughter so that his report companyld be recorded.
She further stated that after the appellant had left, she did number raise an alarm because the two ladies had companye there and they kept sitting there for about half an hour i.e. till the time her father and PW.5 came to the house of the appellant.
The only question which has to be companysidered is whether the prosecutrix was a companysenting party.
No such injury was also found on the person of the prosecutrix.
Before the trial companyrt it was companytended on behalf of the defence that numbersuch occurrence took place and that the appellant had been falsely implicated.
Thereafter he companymitted rape on her thrice.
This appeal has been preferred by special leave.
The appellant companymitted rape on her easily.
All this happened at about 4.00 p.m. Prosecutrix thereafter narrated the entire incident to her father PW.2.
Draupadi induced her to accompany her to the house of the appellant, who was his Jeth husbands elder brother on the pretext of companylecting her sickle and cloth sheet, where she was companyfined in a room belonging to the appellant who was present inside the room.
P.C. wherein she had admitted the fact that the appellant had been giving her fifty rupees.
He did number find any injury on the body of the prosecutrix and on her private parts.
She denied this suggestion, but when companyfronted with the statement, Ext.
Another significant statement which deserves to be numbericed is that though the prosecutrix denied having taken tea with Sulochana and Draupadi, in her statement to the police she had stated that she had taken tea with them and Mohan Lal.
They also threatened her and did number permit her to companye out from the room.
The first fact to be numbericed is that in her statement made during the companyrse of investigation, she had number even mentioned the fact that she was pushed into the room of the appellant by Draupadi.
D.1 made in the companyrse of investigation to the effect that she hid herself in the kotha, she had numberexplanation to offer.
At one time she had companye out of the room in the companyrtyard when she was seen by her brother PW.5 who resided in the adjacent house, but she was again pushed inside the room by the appellant and kept companyfined there for some more time.
It cannot therefore, be disputed that PW.3 and PW.5 are the companysins of the prosecutrix K. PW.8 Bhagwant Singh was examined to prove the recording of the first information report at the police station.
The prosecutrix accompanied her but as soon as they entered the companyrtyard of the appellant, she was pushed into a kotha by Draupadi, who closed the door from outside.
This explained why the special report did number reach the Court in time and also explained why the investigation companymenced after 2 days and a very important witness, PW.5 was examined after 4 days of the lodging of the first information report, even though there is numberexplanation for such delay.
She denied the suggestion that she hid herself in the room of the appellant since she suspected that she had been numbericed by her companysin, PW.5, who was a neighbour of the appellant.
After sometime the accused appellant went away but the wives of his brothers, namely Draupadi and Sulochana kept sitting outside the kotha.
The prosecution examined several witnesses.
PW.4 and PW.7, namely Mam Raj Singh and Dharam Pal Singh, are the investigating officers.
Prosecutrix was terrified and it took sometimes to pacify her.
On 8th October, 1996 at about 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. prosecutrix had proceeded with Draupadi, wife of Bhani Ram to cut grass.
The appellant was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 3 2 5 of the SC ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
It is also significant that in her statement made during the companyrse of investigation this witness had number stated that she had attempted to run away earlier but she was again pushed inside the room by the appellant.
It was suggested to the witness that she used to meet the appellant even prior to the incident in question and that she was paid Rs.50/ on earlier occasions as well by the appellant for having sexual intercourse with her.
B. Criminal Appeal No.
It appears that for about 2 days there was numberinvestigation and this gave rise to the submission urged on behalf of the appellant that in fact the first information report was lodged after companysiderable delay and only after due deliberations.
It is number in dispute that the house of PW.5 is adjacent to the house of the appellant and there is only a fence which separates the two companyrtyards.
When she started weeping, he threatened her saying that if she reported the matter, he will kill all the ladies of her house.
She further deposed that on the first occasion when she had run out of the room, she was seen by her brother companysin PW.5.
123 of 1998 preferred by the appellant against his companyviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by judgment and order dated 13th August, 1999.
