The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible and consistent evidence in proving charges of rape. The court also discussed the applicability of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act and its amendments.

ORDER :

Shailendra Shukla, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellants seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.02.2015 pronounced against them by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh in S.T. No. 33/2014; whereby they have been convicted as under :-

2. Admitted facts are that the appellant Ratanlal is the real brother of the husband of the prosecutrix namely Nandlal and it is also admitted that prior to marriage of prosecutrix with Nandlal she had been engaged to be married to appellant Ratanlal.

3. Prosecution story in short is that, the prosecutrix lodged a report on 26.12.2013 at Police Station Biaora, District Rajgarh to the effect that while she was feeding the cattle in the night of 20.12.2013, Ratanlal, her brother-in-law (elder brother of her husband) came from behind and caught hold of her hand and when she tried to shout, her mouth was pressed and tried to drag her out. When prosecutrix tried to free herself, appellant Tarvarsingh also came and both of them pressed her mouth so that she may not protest and they dragged her to bamboo grove situated near a well and tried to force themselves upon her. When she protested, Ratanlal threw her on the ground and raped her and the same act was committed by Tarvarsingh. Thereafter both of them threatened her that she would be done to death, if she narrated the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix returned to her house and narrated the incident to her husband in the next morning, who was not present at home at the time of incident, however, her husband did not believe her and sent her to her parental house. However, prosecutrix was ultimately brought to the Police Station by her husband Nandlal.

4. After lodging of FIR investigation ensued and charge-sheet was filed under Section 376(D) and 506 of IPC against both the appellants. Charges were read out under same provisions of IPC and appellant Ratanlal took a defence that there is a dispute between him and his brother Nandlal (husband of prosecutrix) over money and land and, hence, he has been falsely implicated. Appellants have produced two defence witnesses namely Bane Singh and Suresh Sharma. After examination of prosecution evidence and recording of defence evidence the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as described earlier.

5. In the present appeal it has been submitted that the FIR has been lodged very belatedly, that although prosecutrix has stated that her bangles had got broken, the Investigating Officer has not seized any broken bangles, that the appellant has been implicated due to previous enmity on account of land dispute, that no injury has been found on the person of prosecutrix, that the prosecutrix has not been supported by any other witness and there are number of omissions/contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix and other witnesses and on these grounds appellants have requested that they be acquitted.

6. That question of consideration is whether the grounds contained in the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellants deserve to be acquitted.

7. The Trial Court has held that the evidence of prosecutrix is reliable and the contradiction between the court statements of prosecutrix and statement made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is explainable.

8. It would be appropriate to revisit the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses while considering the present appeal. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in all. The prosecutrix-X is PW-9, her husband Nandlal is PW-10. Another important relevant witness is Mangilal (PW-4),