The statement of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to establish the commission of the offense of rape, and the entrustment of property is a necessary element for the offense of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C.

Arun Madan, J.-This revision petition has been preferred before this Court against the order dated 21-8-97 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar by which, the petitioner has been charged for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 328, 376, 506, 385, 409 and 420,I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 41/97 on the basis of the FIR No. 328/96 registered with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar.

2. Thefacts which are relevant for deciding this revision petition briefly stated are that an FIR was lodged with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar by the prosecutrix Mst. Rachna Gupta on 17-6-96 with an allegation that she was appointed as a Teacher in the school owned and managed by the petitioner Rajesh Sharma. On the closure of the school by the management, it had resulted in discontinuation of the services of the prosecutrix. Smt. Shalini Sharma wife of the petitioner who was at the relevant time presiding as chair-person of a registered society namely Navodaya Samaj Kalyan Samiti and who was subsequently appointed as Vice-President of Rajasthan Samaj Kalyan Advisory Board, Jaipur for the reason that she could not spare time to look after the abovenamed society. At that time, Smt. Shalini Sharma had approached the prosecutrix Mst. Rachna Gupta with a request for taking over the charge as a chair-person of the said society but, she did not agree to the said proposal. Subsequently, an agreement was executed between Smt. Shalini Sharma and the prosecutrix-Mst. Rachna Gupta wherein, the income through subscription, received by the society by way of grant and funding received by way of publication of advertisements etc. were specified in the said agreement. It was further alleged by the prosecutrix that Smt. Shalini Sharma had pretended as if she had treated prosecutrix as her younger sister. On the fateful day i.e. the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was requested by Smt. Shalini Sharma to come and finalise the work of the said society in the night hours at her residence for the reason that she could not be called earlier on account of heavy pre-occupation and also because of her political status. It was further alleged that the prosecutrix was asked to come to the residence of Smt. Shalini Sharma on 9-5-95 where, she was induced to take the liquor to which she had refused and, thereafter, she was offered soft drink which she agreed to accept. Immediately after consuming the said soft drink she lost her consciousness and when she regained the same she found herself in a naked position lying on the bed besides the petitioner. When she was woken up on the following day, she had obviously presumed that an act of sexual intercourse against her consent had been committed by the petitioner. She further alleged that she was threatened by the petitioner that in case she dared to inform the police she would be done away with and this threat was conveyed to her by both petitioner as well as his wife Smt. Shalini Sharma. As per FIR, it has further been revealed that for the entire period of one year the prosecutrix had travelled for the work of the society from Jaipur to Delhi and other places to collect the donations for the Souvenir and for various other purposes.

3. It was further alleged that in the month of April, 96 grant of Rs. 3,85,000/-was sanctioned in the name of the society under two schemes. The prosecutrix tried to change the members of the society for which she was scolded by the co-accused Smt. Shalini Sharma that she should not dare to interfere with the working of the society. It is further alleged that this fact was disclosed by the prosecutrix to her brother and father, respectively who in turn had met the chair-person of the Board Smt. Sariya Khan and apprised her of the incident.

4. Soon after lodging the FIR with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar, the investigation commenced and the challan was put up against the petitioner initially for the commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(C),