Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
(S. B.)
S. S. Byas, J.
Punia alias Pannalal -Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan -Respondent
Cr. A. (Jail) No. 426 of 1982
Decided on 11-7-1983
V. K. Mathur, Advocate- For the Appellant.
L. S. Udawat, Public Prosecutor- For the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
(i) Where prosecutrix offence in case of rape, attempt to murder and robbery is above board and her credit has not been shaken in lengthy cross-examination, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony.
(ii) Sentence of 4 years R.I. for offence of rape attempt to murder and robbery cannot be said to be harsh and heavy.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, Sections 376, 307 and 394-Prosecutrix raped by accused, silenced at point of knife, given 12 in juries on neck and other vital parts by sharp edged weapon and deprived of silver necklace by force- Medical examination taking place within a few hours-Doctor's evidence corroborating said injuries and rape- Victim near relative of accused- Her credit not shaken on her cross-examination at length-Is testimony of victim to be disbelieved be cause of her being prosecutrix? (No-Trial court accepting her testimony as true and no good and cogent reason to take a different view-Testimony of prosecutrix above board should High Court interfere in appeal? (No) - Is sentence of 4 years R.I. for such grave and heinous offences harsh and heavy? (No) (Paras 6, 7 & 9)
JUDGMENT
S. S. Byas, J. - This is a jail, appeal by the accused Punia alias Pannalal against the judgment dated October 5, 1982 of the learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicting and sentencing him as under:
Sections
Sentence Awarded
307, Indian Penal Code
4 years, R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months" rigorous imprisonment.
376, Indian Penal Code
4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
394, Indian Penal Code
4 years, R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
2. Substantive sentences were made to run concurrently, while those in default of fine consecutively.
3. P.W. 1 Smt. Khomli aged about 25 years, who is prosecutrix in the case used to live with her parents in village Maladeo District Udaipur. In July 1981, she came to Udai Pur in search of some job. The accused took her to village Pahada where she was working in some fields. On 5-7-1981, the accused took her to Udaipur. After having some rounds in the city, the accused took her in a lonely place situate near CTAE College. There he committed rape with the prosecutrix. When she tried to raise cries, the accused took out a knife and struck a number of blows with it to her. SrnL Khomli was wearing the silver ornament, Ex. 1 in her neck. The accused forcibly removed it and thereafter made good his escape. Smt. Khomli somehow or other managed to come to CTAE College. There she found watchman P. W. 3 Rooplal. She told him what had taken place with her. P.M. 3 Rooplal contacted the Chief Warden P.W. 2 Shri Jabbar Singh. P.W. 2 Jabbar Singh informed the Station House Officer, P. S. Pratap Nagar. P.W. 12 Prahlad Singh, S.H.O. immediately came to the College and recorded the statement Ex. P/2 of the prosecutrix. He registered a case under Sections 307, 376 and 394, Indian Penal Code and. proceeded with the investigation. The site was inspected. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by P.W.8 Dr. G. L. and, the then the Medical Jurist III the General Hospital, Udaipur. He found as many as 12 injuries on the person of the prosecutrix except injury No. 12. All the injuries were stated to have been caused by same sharp edged weapon. Six of the injuries were stated as dangerous to life. He also found the evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The medical reports prepared by him, are Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/9. The accused was arrested on 12-7-1981. In consequence of the information furnished by him whilst under the police custody, the stolen silver ornament and the knife used by him in the commission of the offence were recovered from various places. The blood-stained clothes of the prosecutrix as well as of the accused were seized and were sent for Chemical Examination. The blood was found on all of then. After when, the investigation was over, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who in his turn committed him to the court of Sessions to take trial. The case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Udaipur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 307, 376 and 394, Indian Penal Code against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. According to him., his relations with the brother of the prosecutrix were not happy. As such, he was falsely implicated. He laid his claim on the stolen silver ornament and stated that those it belonged to him. During trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and filed some documents. The recovered articles were also produced. In defence, the accused examined him self and one more witness. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the Prosecution story as true and held that all the charges duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sent
