Tejeng Vs. State of Rajasthan

Tejeng vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 11, 1982

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758976

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758976
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: M.C. Jain, J.
Decided On: Feb 11, 1982
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1977
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

PENAL CODE - Section 366--Prosecution story unnatural & improbable--Statements of PW 1 & PW 2 not credible--Relations between prosecutrix & accused already doubted--Prosecutrix willing & consenting party in going with accused--Held, offence under Section 366 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.;The...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tejeng

Advocate Mr. P.L. Choudhary

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1982WLN(UC)117

Excerpt

.....statements of pw 1 mst. tola and pw 2 mst. kala do not appear to be credible. if mst. tola was not a willing party, it was quite natural to raise an alarm and to have made it known to others that she has been forcibly abducted. thus, her conduct and other attending circumstances lead to this conclusion that she was a willing and consenting party. in any case, an offence under section 366, ipc is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant.;appeal allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....to be un-natural and improbable. p.w. 1 mst. tola was a grown up girl aged 20 years. her relations with the appellant were already doubted. the appellant is a close neighbour of mst. tola. p.w.1 mst. tola no where raised any hue and cry on the way to the village jadikajra and from there to village thoomadh. from perusal of the statement, it appears that mst. tola willingly went with the accused. although, mst. tola and mst. kala have stated that lathi blows were inflicted on the legs of mst. tola and there is some corroboration also from the statement of p.w. 7 dr. b.s. rathore. but the statements of p.w. 1 mst. tola and p.w. 2 mst. kala do not appear to be credible. if mst. tola was not a willing party, it was quite natural to raise an alarm and to have made it known to others that she has been forcibly abducted. thus, her conduct and other attending circumstances lead to this conclusion that she was a willing and consenting party. in any case, an offence under section 366, i.p.c. is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.5. accordingly, the appeal is allowed. the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under section 366, i.p.c.

Full Judgment

M.C. Jain, J.

1. Appellant Tejeng has been convicted for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. has been sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, by his judgment dated January 19, 1977.

2. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that in the morning of 11-5-76, Mst. Tola P.W. 1 aged 20 years along with her niece Mst. Kala aged 12 years left their house for the jungle for collecting the wood. It is said that the accused-appellant Tejeng came to them and asked Mst. Tola to accompany him and he will keep her as his wife. There upon, Mst. Tola refused. It is said that the accused inflicted 2-3 lathis blows on the left leg of Mst. Tola and pulled her away. At a distance of 100 paces, one Lalchand met them and he also pulled her. At some distence, Mahji and Bhomji also told blows, The prosecution case further is that near the village Hetabari, Mahji and Bhomji left them. After some distance, Lalchand also left their company. Tejeng took Mst. Tola first to village Jadikajra and from Jadikajra to village Theemadh, Mst. Tola left for the village Chhota Lohariya in the night and went to the house of Mst. Puni, who reported the matter to Tola's brother Barsingh and then, Barsingh took her away to his village Somjipada fiom village Chhota Lohariya. A report was lodged on 13-5-76. Thereupon, a case was registered against the four accused-persons. After investigation, the accused-persons were challaned. On trial, the three other accused persons were acquitted. However, the appellant Tejeng was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. I have heard Mr. P.L. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case.

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant can not be sustained. The whole prosecution story as narrated by Mst. Tola appears to be un-natural and improbable. P.W. 1 Mst. Tola was a grown up girl aged 20 years. Her relations with the appellant were already doubted. The appellant is a close neighbour of Mst. Tola. P.W.1 Mst. Tola no where raised any hue and cry on the way to the village Jadikajra and from there to village Thoomadh. From perusal of the statement, it appears that Mst. Tola willingly went with the accused. Although, Mst. Tola and Mst. Kala have stated that lathi blows were inflicted on the legs of Mst. Tola and there is some corroboration also from the statement of P.W. 7 Dr. B.S. Rathore. But the statements of P.W. 1 Mst. Tola and P.W. 2 Mst. Kala do not appear to be credible. If Mst. Tola was not a willing party, it was quite natural to raise an alarm and to have made it known to others that she has been forcibly abducted. Thus, her conduct and other attending circumstances lead to this conclusion that she was a willing and consenting party. In any case, an offence under Section 366, I.P.C. is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. Thus, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 366, I.P.C.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1982 Same Parties Tejeng vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge M.C. Jain, J.

Criminal