PW 2 Smt.
The prosecutrix was scared and did number go to the police station and returned home.
By the time they came, the respondent had run away from her room.
Noticing the evidence of PW 3 Gulab Bai , the High Court observed that Gulab Bai PW 3 had deposed that the prosecutrix had stated that the respondent had tried to outraged her modesty.
Thereafter, she went and lodged the report at Jawar.
After that, he ran away.
By its impugned judgment and order dated March 31, 1999, the High Court while affirming the companyviction of the respondent under Section 450 IPC, acquitted him of the charge under Section 376 IPC.
On the same night, while the prosecutrix was sleeping in her room along with her four years old child, the respondent entered the room armed with a knife, threatened her, gagged her and thereafter companymitted rape.
PW 3 Gulab Bai has also supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as she has stated that on hearing the alarm, she had run to the room of the prosecutrix along with the mother of the prosecutrix.
Under Section 450 IPC, the respondent had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1,000/ .
This, according to the High Court, did number support the prosecution version.
The sentence under Section 450 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone.
Few days later, she went to the district headquarter at Jhalawar and gave a written report to the Superintendent of Police, but she was directed to lodge the report at police station Jawar.
Accordingly, the police report was lodged and a case was registered under Section 450 and 376 IPC.
After the respondent left the place of occurrence, she raised an alarm and on hearing the alarm, her mother Sushila PW 2 , another lady Gulab Bai PW 3 and her brother Mangi Lal PW 7 along with her brothers wife Shyam Bai came to her room.
Sushila , PW 3 Gulab Bai and her younger brother PW 7 Mangi Lal .
The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix Smt.
She was questioned as to whether she had informed the villagers about what had happened in the night, and her answer was that as it was night time, she did number inform anybody in the village about the incident, but she had told all these facts to her mother PW 2 who had companye on hearing her alarm.
Later, in the day, she companyked food for her children and for herself and went to sleep.
The prosecutrix was working as a labourer at a companystruction site and lived in a house along with her children, mother Smt.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence of these witnesses and companyvicted the respondent.
She claimed to have seen the respondent running away from the place of occurrence.
On the following day, when she was going to the police station to lodge the report, she had been threatened by the respondent and, therefore, due to fear she returned.
At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of four witnesses to prove the offence under Section 376 IPC, namely, PW 1 prosecutrix , PW 2 her mother Smt.
He had seen the respondent running away from the house of the prosecutrix.
About the occurrence that had taken place, according to this witness, prosecutrix had reported that the respondent had tried to outrage her modesty.
After four or five days, it appears that she went to the Superintendent of Police with a written report but she was directed to lodge the report at the police station Jawar.
Her husband had died a few years before the date of occurrence leaving behind three children out of whom the eldest being a daughter had also died.
Sushila P.W.2 and brother Mangi Lal P.W.7 .
He thereafter companymitted rape.
After investigation, the respondent was put up for trial before the learned Addl.
He heard his sister telling his mother that she had been raped by the respondent.
He has deposed that his mother also came with him.
He has also supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as he also states that on hearing the alarm raised by his sister PW 1, he rushed to her house, but he waited outside the house.
Earlier the trial companyrt had found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ .
So far as the incident which took place earlier that day is companycerned, the prosecution also examined Ram Kalyan PW 9 who fully supported the version deposed to by the prosecutrix.
The prosecutrix raised an alarm attracting to the place of occurrence her mother Smt.
The High Court has companysidered the evidence of the prosecutrix.
There is hardly any cross examination of this witness.
The respondent entered her room after lifting the main door and thereafter gagged the prosecutrix and prevented her from raising an alarm.
While testing the evidence of PW 2, the High Court numbericed the deposition of the witness to the effect that at first, the witness stated that her daughter had told her numberhing about the incident but in the next sentence, she stated that the prosecutrix had told her that the respondent had companymitted rape upon her.
It is the case of the prosecutrix that on the following morning, when she was on her way to the police station to lodge a report, she was intercepted by the respondent who was armed with a gandasi and who threatened her with dire companysequences if she lodged a police report.
She has stated categorically that when she went to the room of PW 1, she was told by her that the respondent had raped her.
Sushila P.W.2 , another lady Gulab Bai P.W.3 and her brother Mangi Lal P.W.7 .
Sushila is the mother of the prosecutrix.
It is alleged that the offence was companymitted on the night of 5th February, 1994 and the first information report was lodged at Jawar on 9.2.2004.
District and Sessions Judge, Camp at Eklera Dist.
Jhalawar who held the respondent guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 450 IPC.
She narrated the incident to her mother Smt.
She has also deposed that she along with Gulab Bai PW 3 and the prosecutrix had gone to the police station Jawar where she lodged the report.
PW 7 Mangi Lal is the brother of the prosecutrix.
He had also numbericed that the clothes of his sister were torn and she told him that the respondent had raped her.
He was carrying a knife with which he threatened her saying that if she raised an alarm, she would be killed.
Sushila P.W.2 .
According to the prosecution, on February 2, 1994, the respondent misbehaved with the prosecutrix in a drunken state but on intervention of Ram Kalyan PW 9 , he was prevented from causing any harm to the prosecutrix.
Geeta Bai W.1 is a widow aged about 35 years.
She has companyroborated the testimony of PW 1.
PW 1 stated that she had mentioned about the occurrence to her mother and told her that she had been raped by the respondent.
She informed her that she had been raped by the respondent.
P.SINGH, J. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B.Criminal Appeal No.86 of 1996 and S.B.Criminal Jail Appeal No.51 of 1996.
