JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. In the present criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-State, a challenge is laid to the judgment dated 30.03.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No.21/92 (12/89), whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offences under Sections 376, 357 & 114 IPC.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that a verbal report was lodged by complainant-Smt. Aasi (also referred to as ‘prosecutrix’) before the Police Station, Dungargarh, to the effect that two years prior to lodging of the said report, upon the death of her father-in-law, her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.500/-from the accused respondent Meghnath; in lieu of such loan, the complainant alongwith her husband worked in the field of the accused-respondent, so as to enable them to repay the said amount, which they successfully repaid accordingly.

3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the complainant further alleged that one day prior to lodging of the report, while the complainant alongwith her husband was going for road works, the present accused-respondent alongwith one Mohanram, met them outside their village, and made a demand of the aforementioned amount of Rs.500/-; the complainant and her husband told the accused-respondent that the said amount was repaid by them, as they worked in the field of the accused-respondent, in lieu of repayment of such loan amount; thereafter, scuffle took place between both the parties.

3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that as per the aforementioned report, thereafter, owing to the illness of the complainant’s mother-in-law, her husband went to her mother-in-law to take care of her, while the complainant stayed in her own Saal.

3.3 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at about 3 o’clock in the night, while the complainant/prosecutrix was sleeping, the accused-respondent alongwith Mohanram (armed with Barchhi) came and broke open the door of her Saal, as a result of which, she woke up immediately and they were clearly identified by the prosecutrix as the accused were clearly visible in the light of Chimni; when the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, the said Mohan Ram restrained her from doing so by saying that she will be badly beaten with the said Barchhi; thereafter, under such threat, she was subjected to rape by the accused-respondent Meghnath, and after that, while the accused were trying to run away, the prosecutrix raised hue and cry, as a result of which, her husband and some of her neighbours came out, but on count of Mohanram armed with Barchhi, both the accused could not be intercepted.

3.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that on the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered against the present accused-respondent Meghnath as well as his accomplice Mohanram for the alleged offences and the investigation commenced accordingly. After due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against both the accused persons for the offences under Sections 376, 457 and 114 IPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh; but owing to the charge under Section 376 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Churu, from where the case was sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu (‘trial court’) for the necessary trial and adjudication.

3.5 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after filing of the aforementioned charge-sheet, the said accused-Mohanram, without any reason and explanation, did not turn up for trial, and accordingly, his bail bonds and sureties were forfeited, followed by issuance of arrest warrant against him; despite issuance of the arrest warrant, whe