The conviction for rape based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony was quashed due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, emphasizing the need for reliable and corroborated testimony in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Sudesh Bansal, J. - This appeal under Section 374 CrPC has been filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 17.08.1990 in Sessions Case No.157/1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bundi whereby and whereunder the accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

2. The material and relevant facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that:

2.1 Alleged incident of rape is of 31.07.1989 and at that point of time, prosecutrix was a married woman of about 22 years, who lodged a report on 01.08.1989 at Police Station Kapren (Ex.P2), stating inter alia, that she went on her field on a day before the incident to guard her farm and when, after getting freshen up in the water body at Dhoklia wadi, she was returning at about 5-6 PM, accused Kanhaya Lal S/o Deva Gurjar, R/o Boyan Ka Khera, Kapren came there and caught her from back and dropped her on the ground; lifted her Ghagra and committed rape with her against her will. It is stated in the report that after committing sexual intercourse by accused, his semen was discharged and her Ghagra became wet.

2.2 It is stated in the report that when she made a hue and cry, her jeth (husband's elder brother) came on the spot from the nearby field; then after looking him, accused Kanhaya Lal fled away from there.

2.3 It is further stated in the report that after the incident of her rape, she went at her home crying and told about the incident to her husband and then she came in the early morning at about 3:30 AM, with her husband namely Gangadhar and one Dwarka Lal at Police Station for registering the case against accused.

2.4 On such report, an FIR No.90/1989 at Police Station Kapren for offence under Section 376 IPC came to be registered. Investigation was commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bundi and criminal case was registered. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, where charge for alleged offence was framed against accused.

2.5 The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2.6 The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including prosecutrix herself (PW-2), Dr. Hari Mohan (PW-1), Dwarka Lal (PW-3), who went with prosecutrix to lodge the FIR and is author of written report (Ex.P2), Mohan (PW-6), who is jeth of prosecutrix and stated to come at the spot after hearing hue and cry of the prosecutrix as much as is a star witness of prosecution being an eye witness of the incident. In documentary evidence, the medical report of prosecutrix, FSL report, site map etc. were exhibited.

2.7 After concluding prosecution evidence, examination of accused was made under Section 313 CrPC, who denied the evidence of prosecution and claimed that he has falsely been implicated for the alleged offence in the present case.

2.8 After conclusion of trial, the trial Court after relying upon the statement of prosecutrix (PW-2) and her medical report proved by Dr. Hari Mohan (PW-1), arrived at conclusion that the accused appellant is guilty for committing offence under Section 376 IPC vide judgment dated 17.08.1990 and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.

2.9 Hence, in such backdrop of facts, accused-appellant has preferred this appeal.

2.10 During course of hearing of the appeal, sentence awarded against appellant was suspended vide order dated 05.11.1990, taking note of the fact that during course of criminal trial also accused appellant was released on regular bail.

3. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

4.1 Learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of accused-appellant would contend that the solitary statement of prosecutrix (PW-2) are not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused appellant for the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt and her statements are not of that much sterling