Naravan @ Naran vs State Of Rajasthan

The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 25.8.1999 Smt. Chandi was selling chillies at village Singhji- ka-Khera at around 07-07.30 p.m.. The appellant Narain came to her and told her that his brother had a shop in his village and he will get her chillies sold at the shop of his brother. He accordingly got two sacks of chillies loaded into the trolley attached to the tractor which the appellant himself was driving. She also boarded into the trolley. The appellant started driving the tractor into the jungle. By the time it was dark. After driving sometime he stopped the tractor near a drain where there were "Lambool" trees on the pretext of answering the call of nature. The appellant entered into the trolley and dragged the sacks of chillies and put them on the ground and made her to get down from the trolley. He dragged her beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape. She started shouting but the appellant pressed her mouth with his hands. Thereafter, the appellant loaded the chillies bags into the tractor and made her to sit in the trolley and started driving the tractor hither and thither. He went on roaming here and there and stopped the tractor at Seriya (a place) surrounded by cactus plants. The appellant again made her to get down from the tractor and forcibly committed rape. When she started to raise hue and cry her mouth was shut by the appellant. Then again he loaded the chillies bags and made her to sit in the trolley and took her to a shed and once again committed rape. Finally he took her to the banks of a pond, made her to get down from the trolley and threatened her to push into the pond and forcibly snatched gold tops and Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence in his tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and took shelter for night in the house of one Smt. Tej Kanwar (PW-6). It is alleged in the report (Ex.P-4) that rape has been committed by the appellant on the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched away by him forcibly. Based on the report (Ex.P-

4) the Police Station Kotadi, District Bhilwara issued first information report (Ex. P-5) and registered a case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC against the appellant. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained. The statement of Smt. Tej Kanwar (Ex. P-11) was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 392 IPC. The prosecution altogether examined 12 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) and 18 documents were marked (Ex. P-1 to P-18). The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded in which he stated that due to enmity with Ramkunwar, Sarpanch (PW-7) he has been falsely implicated.

5) was issued, is also required to be carefully evaluated. In exhibit P-4 (report) the prosecutrix (PW-3) alleged that while she was selling chillies in the colony Bolon of Singhji-Ka-Khera village the accused came driving the tractor at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. on 24.8.1999 and offered to get her chillies sold in the shop of his brother in his village. He got two sacks of chillies kept in the trolley "with the help of persons already sitting in the trolley" It is alleged that the appellant had stopped the tractor near a drain where there were "Lambool" trees and forcibly committed rape on her. She started shouting but the appellant covered her mouth. She again sat into the trolley. The tractor was stopped at "Seriya" where the appellant again committed rape. She again tried to shout but the appellant covered her mouth. He once again made her to sit in the tractor and took her to a shed and once again committed rape. That after committing rape thrice the appellant took the prosecutrix to the banks of a pond where he forcefully snatched away Rs. 1000/-and gold tops from the prosecutrix and ran away with his tractor. We are required to note that the persons who were already sitting in the trolley when the prosecutrix for the first time entered into the trolley along with her two sacks of chillies are not examined. Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) in her deposition stated that on the frightful night at about 10 or 11 O'clock the prosecutrix knocked at her door and she opened the door. The other members of the family were sleeping in the house. The prosecutrix stated that she was the resident of Vishniya and requested her to provide a bed- sheet so that she could sleep in the night. The material portion of her evidence reads as: "She said "give me the bed-sheet and I shall sleep." We gave her the bed-sheet to sleep on and she slept. She did not tell me anything else. I also did not ask her name. In the morning, she went from my house." This witness was declared hostile and subjected to cross examination by the Public Prosecutor. In the cross- examination she stated that her statement was recorded by the police. Portion A to B of the police statement (Ex. P-11) in which she is alleged to have stated that at the relevant time the prosecutrix was weeping, is denied. It is categorically stated by her that she did not weep at all. Nothing is suggested as to why she should give false evidence. This witness nowhere stated to the effect that the Prosecutrix (PW-3) revealed anything about accused committing rape on her.

In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

That so far as the charge against the appellant framed under Section 392 is concerned there is no acceptable evidence except the self-serving statement of the Prosecutrix (PW-3) which we are not willing to accept for the very same reason recorded herein above. The said charge framed against the appellant also fails. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the prosecution failed to establish the charges framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 392 IPC. The conviction as well as sentences imposed upon the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 392 IPC are accordingly set aside.

The appeal is allowed.

The appellant is in jail. He is ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.