Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.
1. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th March, 1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 44/8 State v. Chathu Ram. By the aforesaid judgment the accused respondent Chathu Ram was acquitted of the charges under Section 341 and 376, I.P.C
3. The facts of the case may be summarised as below :-
On 6th October, 1977 Moolchand submitted the First Information Report, Ex. P/1 at the Police Station, Makarana and stated-therein that his daughter Smt. Chothudi was married to Puranmal resident of Ladpur and on the dale of occurrence Puranmal had gone to Deedwana, where a fair of animals was held and in his absence on 5th October, 1977 at about 11 a.m. Smt. Chothudi started from her house with Santu S/o Surajtnal to go to her field. When she was passing through the field of Badrinarain, she wan slopped by Chathu Ram n/o Roogharam. Her daughter Smt. Chothudi and Santu raised hue and cry, but Chathuram forcibly committed rape on Smt. Chothudi. On hearing the hue and cry raised by Santu and Chothudi, Chhaganlal and Suvalal, who were working in the neighbourhood rushed to the place of occurrence. They challenged the accused and thereafter the accused got tip and threatened Suvalal and Chhaganlal with death and went to his Dhani. According to the First Information Report Moolchand came to know about the incident in the evening of 5th October, 1977. Thereafter, he went to Ladpura where his daughter Smt. Chothudi, Chhaganlal and Suvalal told him about the incident. Since, Puranmal, the husband of Smt. Chothudi was out of station, the First Information Report was judged by Moolchand.
4. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Moolchand,' The police registered a ease under Section 371 and 341 I.P.C. Usual investigation was conducted. After concluding the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the High Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Makarana. On the basis of the chargesheet submitted by police, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Makarana took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376, I.P.C. He committed 1 he case to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Merta vide order dated 23rd August, 1980. Accused respondent Chathu Ram was charged under Sections 341 and 376, I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty to tie charges framed against him.
5. The prosecution examined Bhanwari P.W. 1, Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Smt. Santosh P.W. 3, Moolchand P.W. 4, Chhaganlal P.W. 5, Suvalal P.W. 6, Ummaid Singh P.W. 7. Ramgopal P.W. 8 in support of the prosecution case.
6. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. He examined Laluram D.W. 1 in defence.
7. The learned District and Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence given by the victim Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 and the eyewitnesses namely, Santosh P.W. 3, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6 was not reliable. He therefore, came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the respondent were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and in consequence of his findings, he acquitted the accused-respondent of both the charges.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Merta has without sufficient reason disbelieved the evidence produced by the prosecution and in fact, the prosecution evidence is reliable and sufficient to prove both the charges against the accused. He has therefore prayed that the appeal filed by the State should be allowed, the order of acquittal should be set aside and quashed and the accused respondent should be convicted under Sections 341 and 376, I.P.C.
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the decision given by the learned District and Sessions Judge and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the State.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties, the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as by the accused and the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge. It is true that in an appeal against acquittal the verdict of acquittal cannot be set aside merely because another view of the evidence is possible. The order of acquittal passed by the trial Court can be set aside only if there are compelling reasons which must be in the nature of miscarriage of justice if the order of acquittal is not set aside. However, as a court of first appeal, the legal obligation to consider the evidence produced by the parties and the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be avoided, and therefore, this Court is bound to consider whether the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be reversed on the grounds pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor.
11. Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 is the victim of We offence. She has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 12 a.m. to 1 p.m. she was going to her field from her house. At that time she was accompanied by Santosh, who is the daughter of her husband's elder brother. The pathway to her field passes through the fields of Bhagirath and Badrinarain. She was going on that path-way behind Santosh, who was going with shegoats. She was carrying with her the breakfast. At that time, the accused Chathu Ram was sitting near a 'Khejari'. When she reached near the Khejari, Chathu Ram stopped her and then in order to save herself, she moved towards the field in which 'Bajri' crop was standing, but Chathu Ram followed her. She asked Chathu Ram why he had stopped her and was obstructing her way, but Chathu Ram threw her plate, in which she was carrying breakfast and her skirt (Lahanga), which she was wearing was also torn by him and he caught her hand and forcibly threw her on the ground. Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 has further stated that she raided hue and cry and on hearing the hue and cry. Santosh ran away and the accused tore her blouse (Kabja) and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. It was further stated by Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 that she raised hue and cry and attempted to resist and on hearing hue and cry, her husband's elder brother Chhaganlal and her Devar Suvalal reached the spot, and on seeing them the accused ran away. Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 further stated hat her bangles had been broken and after the incident, she was brought to her house by Chhaganlal and Suvalal and on reaching her house, she narrated the incident to her sister-in-law Smt. Bhanwari Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 further revealed that on the date of occurrence her husband had gone to Deedwana, and there was no male member present in her house and her husband returned from Deedwana on the next day in the evening and she told her husband about the incident. After that her husband brought her father Moolchand and she told about the incident to her father and her father then lodged the First Information Report about the incident. It was also stated by her that her husband did not go to the Police Station to lodge the report, because her husband and other members of the family were afraid of Chathu Ram. According to Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 her clothes, which had been torn at the time of incident were handed over to the Police. She identified in court her skirt (Lahanga) (article 1) and blouse (Kabja) (article 2) and the pieces of bangles (article 3).
12. Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 was cross examined at length. There is nothing in her cross-examination to justify the conclusion that she has given a false statement. At the end of cross-examination, suggestion was made to her that her husband had taken some items from the shop of Prahland on credit at the instance of the accused and a quarrel had taken place between her husband and the accused, and therefore, a false case has been instituted by her. She has categorically denied this suggestion. There is absolutely nothing in her statement to justify the conclusion that she is not a reliable witness.
13. Smt. Santosh P.W. 3 has corroborated the statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2. She has stated on oath that on the date of occurrence at noon, she was going with Smt. Chothudi to the field with her shegoats. At that time Chothudi was carrying bread in a Tagaari and when she was passing through the fields of Badrinarain and Bhagirath,' accused Chathu Ram, who was cutting grass in the field, obstructed Smt. Chothudi and in order to save herself Smt. Chothudi moved a few paces towards the field, and thereafter, Chathu Ram caught the hand of Smt. Chothudi and took her towards the 'Med'. Santosh P.W. 3 added that at that point of time, she ran away from the scene of occurrence out of fear. Santosh P.W. 3 has been crossrexamined at some length. There is nothing in her statement to justify the conclusion that she has given a false statement.
14. Suvalal P.W. 6 has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 11 a.m. to 12 a.m., he was present in his field. At that time, he heard hue and cry, but he could not ascertain from which place the hue and cry was coming. He therefore, started towards his village and proceeded towards the place from where the cries were coming. Suvalal has added that in the field of Badrinarain, Smt. Chothudi was sitting near the Khejari and at a distance of 3-4 paces from her, accused Chathu Ram was standing in the field of Bhagirath and when he reached near Smt. Chothudi, Smt. Chothudi started weeping but did not tell anything to him. At that time, Ghaghara and Lahanga of Smt. Chothudi were torn and the Tagaari, in which she was carrying breakfast (bread) was lying on the ground and the accused Chathu ram was putting on his Dhoti in the style of a Loongi and was abusing. Suvalal P.W. 6 has further added that Smt. Chothudi is her sister-in-law (elder brother's wife) and he accompanied her to her house and when Smt. Chothudi related the incident to her sister-in-law and he over-heard Smt. Chothudi who said that the accused had committed rape on her. Suvalal P.W. 6 has further added that after he reached the spot. Chhaganlal also reached the spot and inquired as to what had happened. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Suvalal P.W. 6 to justify the conclusion that his statement is false or doubtful.
15. Chhaganlal P.W. 5 has deposed that on the-date of occurrence at about 12 a.m. he was in his field. At that time, he heard hue and cry and he as well as Suvalal rushed towards the place where Smt. Chothudi was raising hue and cry. She was sitting there and the accused Chathu Ram was going from that place. The 'Odhani' of Smt. Chothudi was torn. Chhaganlal P.W. 5 has added that Smt. Chothudi did not tell him about anything and he asked Smt. Chothudi to go to her house and then she went to her house and on reaching the house, Smt. Chothudi told about the incident to members of her family. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to justify the conclusion that his evidence is tainted with falsehood.
16. Bhanwari P.W. 1 is the real sister of Puranmal. She has deposed that she became widow when she was a child and that she was residing at her father's house since her childhood. She has added that on the date of occurrence Smt. Chothudi and Santosh both went to the field and Smt. Chothudi returned to the house and she was weeping. At that time Suvalal and Chaganlal were accompanying her. Bhanwari P.W. 1 has further added that Smt. Chothudi had told her that when she was going to her field, accused Chatha Ram caught her by force and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is also stated by Bhanwari P.W. 1 that the Ghanghara and Kabja of Smt. Chothudi were torn and her bangles had been broken and sand was also present on her body. Banwari P.W. 1 has added that the clothes, which Smt. Chothudi was putting on were removed and after taking a bath, she put on another set of clothes. On that day, the husband of Smt. Chothudi was not present at the house. He returned after three days and then went to lodge the report. It is also stated by Bhanwari P.W. 1 that on the day following the incident, the accused Chathu Ram went to her house, showered abuses and attempted to beat with lathi, and therefore, on account of fear she as well as Smt. Chothudi did not go out of the house. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Smt. Bhanwari P.W. 1 to justify the conclusion that she has given false statement or her statement is doubtful to any extent.
17. Moolchand P.W. 4 is the father of the victim Smt. Chothudi and the author of the First Information Report Ex.P/1. He has deposed that his son-in-law Puranmal went to him and told him that Chathu Ram had torn the clothes of Smt. Chothudi and committed rape on her and on hearing about this incident from his son-in-law, he went to Ladpura and met Smt. Chothudi and on seeing him, she started weeping and became unconscious. Moolchand P.W. 4 has further added that he inquired from Chhaganlal and Suvalal as to what had happened and S uvalal and Chhaganlal told him about whole of the incident. Moolchand P.W. 4 has proved the First Information Report Ex.P/1 and his signatures on the Report Ex.P/2 prepared by the police on the basis of Ex.P/1. In his cross-examination, Moolchand P.W. 4 has admitted that before he was told about the incident by his son-in-law, he had come to know about the incident through one other person of the village and that when he reached Ladpura, the son-in-law Puranmal was not present in Ladpura. There is nothing in the statement of Moolchand to justify the conclusion that his evidence is open to any doubt.
18. Dr. Ummaid Singh P.W. 7 is the doctor, who examined Smt. Chothudi on 7th October, 1977. He found three injuries, which were in the nature of bruises. The first bruise was of the size of 4' x 1' and was on back on the right border of thorasic spine. The second bruise was of the size of one and half inch x one inch on the right side of injury No. 1. The third bruise was of the size of six and quarter inch and it was on the outer side of injury No. 2 and these injuries were caused by some blunt object and were of two days duration. Ummaid Singh P.W. 7 has further stated that there were no spots of semen or blood on the body of Smt. Chothudi. Dr. Ummaid Singh P.W. 7 has proved his report Ex.P/3 and added that after seeing the report sent by the Chemical Analyst, he is of the opinion that sexual intercourse had been committed with Smt. Chothudi. It is further revealed by Dr. Ummaid Singh P.W. 7 that Smt. Chothudi was 23 years old and was accustomed of sexual intercourse, therefore, it was not necessary that injuries should have been caused by the intercourse committed on her. Regarding the bruises found on the back of Smt. Chothudi, Dr. Ummaid Singh P.W. 7 has stated that these bruises could be caused by throwing Smt. Chothudi on the ground and could also be caused by a lathi. The presence of three bruises on the back of Smt. Chothudi, corroborates the statement of Smt. Chothudi that she was forcibly thrown on the ground and was raped. Ex. P/4 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. It shows that on the 'ghagra' which was sent for examination semen was found. Ex. P/4 corroborates the statement of Chothuri P.W. 2.
19. Ramgopal P.W. 8 is the Police Officer, who has deposed that after registering the case on the basis of the report submitted by Moolchand, he went to the spot and found foot-prints of shoes and pieces of broken bangles and also found the 'Khoontas' of Bajri in a broken condition. He has proved the site plan Ex. P/6. It is also stated by him that he had taken the 'Ghagra' and 'Kabja' of Smt. Chothudi in custody and sealed them and prepared the recovery memo Ex.P/7.
20. The accused Chathu Ram has denied all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
21. Laluram D.W. 1 has deposed that in the month of Asoj when he went to Ladpura to purchase a bull, he saw that a quarrel was taking place between Chathu Ram and Puranmal regarding some items purchased from the shop. Chathu Ram was asking Puranmal to pay the price of the goods purchased by him on credit. Laluram D.W. 1 has added that when enquired the parties as to why they were quarrelling, he was told that there was a dispute regarding the goods purchased from a shop and Puranmal was not paying the price thereof. In his cross-examination Laluram D.W. 1 has admitted that he did not relate about the quarrel seen by him to anyone before he was examined in the Court.
22. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon two circumstances for discarding the prosecution evidence as unreliable. The first ground is delay in reporting the matter to the police and the second ground is absence of corroboration. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the explanation given by Smt. Bhanwari for delay in reporting the matter to the Police Station is not satisfactory. The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the statement given by Moolchand P.W. 4, who is the author of the First Information Report Ex.P/1.
23. In para 16 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that according to the statement of Smt. Chothudi, the accused was committing sexual intercourse with her at the time when Chhaganlal and Suvalal reached the place of occurrence. But, Chhaganlal and Suvalal have not stated that when they reached the spot, they found the accused committing sexual intercourse with Smt. Chothudi.
24. I have carefully read the statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2. She has stated that on hearing the hue and cry raised by her, her Jeth Chhaganlal and Devar Suvalal reached the spot and on seeing them, the accused ran away. This statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 does not mean that the accused was committing rape on her when Chhaganlal and Suvalal reached the spot. In fact, the statements of Chhaganlal and Suvalal show that by the time they reached the spot, the accused had already committed rape on Smt. Cholhudi. The learned Sessions Judge has obviously misread the statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 in this behalf.
25. Another circumstance used by the learned Sessions Judge for disbelieving the statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 is that she did not tell about the incident to Chhaganlal and Suvalal when they reached the spot. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the conduct of smt. Chothudi in not telling about the incident to Chhaganlal and Suvalal was unnatural. In my opinion, the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is wholly perverse. He has completely forgotten that Chhaganlal was her 'Jeth' and that according to the traditions of the Indian sckiety, Smt. Chothudi did not talk to Chhaganlal. It was therefore, quite natural for her not to have stated anything to chhaganlal and all that she could do was to keep weeping because rape had been committed on her. There was nothing unnatural on the part of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 in not telling about the incident to her 'Jeth' Chhaganlal P.W. 5. Suvalal P.W. 6 was the 'Devar' of Smt. Cholhudi. For a woman like Smt. Cholhudi P.W. 2 on whom rape had been committed a few moments ago, it was not unnatural to have kept on weeping till she reached her house. Rape produces a mental shock. So long the effect of rape is not over, it is not proper to expect from the victim of rape that she should start narrating the story of rape committed on her to the persons, who assembled at the spot after the commission of the crime. There was nothing unnatural on the part of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 if she did not relate about the incident to Chhaganlal and Suvalal soon after the incident and narrated the incident to Smt. Bhanwari P.W.I.
26. Another circumstance used by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the evidence produced by the prosecution is that according to Bhanwari P.W. 1, Smt. Chothudi returned to her house in the evening and it means that she remained outside the house for 4-5 hours after the incident and that according to Bhanwari P.W. 1, Smt. Chothudi returned to the house alone and Suvalal and Chhaganlal reached the house after sometime.
27. In my opinion, the aforesaid circumstance cannot be used for the purpose of discarding the evidence of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 and the evidence given by Chhaganlal and Suvalal or the evidence of Santosh. Every witness who gives an oral account of an incident is entitled to be believed or dis-believed on the basis of the degree of his/or her trustworthiness. A witness is expected to state the whole truth and not to conceal anything while making statement in Court. A witness is further expected to explain the inconsistencies between his two or more statements and if necessary, to explain the omissions committed by him. But, no witness is expected to explain the statements made by other witnesses. Smt. Bhanwari P.W. 1 was examined before the learned Sessions Judge on 28th October, 1980. Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 was examined on 29th October, 1980 and Santosh P.W. 3 was also examined on 29th October, 1980. Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6 were examined on 30th October, 1980. If the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there was inconsistency between the story given by Bhanwari P.W. 1 and the statements given by Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Santosh P.W. 3, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6, it was necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to have exercised his powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and to have asked Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Santosh P.W. 3, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6 whether the version given by Bhanwari P.W. 1 was correct and if so, how it was reconcilable with their own versions. The learned Sessions Judge did not deem it fit to exercise his powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for removing the inconsistency pointed by him between the statement of Bhanwari P.W. 1 and the other witnesses. Obviously, it means that when the witnesses, namely, Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Santosh P.W. 3, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6 were being examined by him, he did not find any inconsistency between their statements and the statement of Bhanwari P.W. 1. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in dis-believing the testimony of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Santosh P.W. 3, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6. The mistake committed by the learned Sessions Judge is two fold. The first is that the evidence of witness/witnesses who have stood the test of cross-examination and are trustworthy, cannot be discarded by pointing out inconsistency between their statements and the statements of other witness. The law relating to appreciation of evidence in this behalf is well established. If a witness has stood the test of cross-examination and his/her testimony is trustworthy and is not open to any doubt, the evidence of such witness cannot be discarded on the ground that another witness has given a version, which is inconsistent with it. If a witness is trustworthy and reliable, his statement must prevail over all other inconsistent statements. In the instant case, the statements of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 has not been shaken in the cross-examination, nor it suffers from any inherent infirmity and in these circumstances, the evidence of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 cannot be disbelieved on the ground that her version is inconsistent with the version given by Bhanwari P.W. 1. The second mistake committed by the learned Sessions Judge is that he has not appreciated his duty to separate the truth from the falsehood. It is well established that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' does not apply in our country. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded on the ground that some portion of the statement of that witness is false. It is the duty of the Court to find out which portion of the statement of the witness is true and which portion of the statement of the witness is false. It is only in those cases, where in spite of pains having been taken by the Court, it is not possible to separate the truth from the falsehood that the entire statement may be rejected. In case, the learned Sessions Judge found that there was any inconsistency between the statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 and the statement of Bhanwari P.W. 1, it was his duty to have made an effort to ascertain whether the statement of Bhanwari P.W. 1 was reliable or the statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 was reliable. It was open to the learned Sessions Judge to have exercised his powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act by putting relevant questions to Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6 to ascertain whether the statement made by Bhanwari P.W. 1 was true or false. The learned Sessions Judge has not exercised his powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is therefore, not open to him to say that the statement of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, who is otherwise reliable witness can be discarded on the ground that this statement is inconsistent with the version given by Bhanwari P.W. 1.
28. I have carefully considered the evidence of Bhanwari P.W. 1, Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal P.W. 6. There is nothing in the statements of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Chhaganlal P.W. 5 and Suvalal; P.W. 6 to justify the conclusion that they have given the false statements. Therefore, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the statements of these witnesses are reliable and not open to any doubts. In these circumstances even if it is held that there is any inconsistency between the statement of Bhanwari P.W. 1 and other two witnesses, the necessary inference would be that it is Smt. Bhanwari P.W. 1 who has not given the correct time when Smt. Chothudi reached the house. The rule is well settled. If a witness has not been shaken in cross-examination and if his/her evidence is not suffering from any inherent infirmity nor is unnatural or improbable and is trustworthy, then the evidence of such witness must be held to be reliable and every other piece of evidence, which is inconsistent with the evidence of such witness should be discarded as false or mistaken.
29. There is another reason for not accepting the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge as correct. In fact, there is no inconsistency between the statement of Bhanwari P.W. 1 and the statement of Chothudi P.W. 2. The incident is alleged to have taken place between 12 a.m. to 1 p.m. At the time of incident, Santosh P.W. 3 who was accompanying Chothudi ran away on account of fear. Chhaganlal P.W. .5 and Suvalal P.W. 6 both reached the place of occurrence after sometime. The place of occurrence was the field of Badrinarain, which was at some distance from the village. Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2 has stated in her statement that she is a patient of hysteria and therefore she suffers from fits. In view of the above fact, it is reasonable to infer that after the commission of rape, Smt. Chothudi must have remained sitting for sometime in the field on account of the mental shock which she had received and that the probable time when she started from the scene of occurrence towards her house was about 1 p.m. to 1-30 p.m., it is quite possible that she might have reached her house after one or two hours. It means that the time at which she reached her house was between 2-30 to 3-30 p.m. In view of the these facts the statement of Bhanwari P.W. 1 that Smt. Chothudi reached the house in the evening does not appear to be inconsistent with the statement given by Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2. The inference drawn by the learned Sessions Judge that Smt. Chothudi remained outside the house for 4-5 hours after the incident, is obviously wrong and without any basis.
30. For the reasons mentioned above, the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the evidence of Smt. Chothudi P.W. 2, Chhaganlal P.W. 5, Suvalal P.W. 6 and Santosh P.W. 3 are perverse and inconsistent with the well established rules of appreciation of evidence. I have therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the acquittal of the respondent has resulted in mis-carriage of justice and it is a fit case in which the order of acquittal should be set aside and the accused-respondent should be convicted under Sections 341 and 376 IPC. The appeal is therefore, allowed. The orders of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and quashed. The accused-respondent Chathu Ram is hereby convicted under Sections 341 and 376, IPC. He is hereby sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous imprisonment of further term for three months for default in payment of fine for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. He is hereby sentenced to one, month's simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341, IPC. Both sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The accused-respondent Chathu Ram is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Merta within a period of 15 days, failing which a non-bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued to compel his attendance and after his surrender or arrest, as the case may be, he shall be committed to Jail so that he may serve out the sentence awarded to him.