NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

R.P. Vyas, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '760281',
			'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '760281',
		(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Narain Naran Vs the State of Rajasthan - Citation 760281 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '760281',
		'acts' => 'Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 366, 376 and 392; Evidence Act - Sections 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'NaraIn @ Naran',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'NaraIn @ Naran Vs. the State of Rajasthan',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. 24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.N. Mohnani, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Vasant Raj Mehta, Public Prosecutor',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2006-02-28',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed   
',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' R.P. Vyas, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.</p><p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.</p><p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.</p><p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.</p><p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.</p><p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.</p><p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.</p><p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.</p><p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.</p><p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.</p><p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.</p><p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.</p><p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.</p><p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.</p><p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.</p><p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.</p><p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.</p><p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.</p><p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.</p><p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.</p><p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.</p><p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.</p><p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2006(3)Raj2244',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Rajasthan',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '760281',
	(int) 1 => 'narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/760281/narain-naran-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>R.P. Vyas, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, accused - appellant Narain @ Naran has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 392, IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further under three months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.99, Smt. Chandi W/o Shri Chhagan lal lodged a written report (Ex.P-4) with the Police Station, Kotri, District -Bhilwara to the effect that on 24.8.99, while she was selling chilli at village Singhji-ka-Khera, at around 7-7.30 p.m., accused Narain Gujar came to her with a Tractor and Trolley and told her that his brother (accused's brother) had a shop in the village and he will get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. Upon this, two bags of chilli, which she (the prosecutrix) was having, were loaded on his (accused's) tractor. She also boarded the tractor of the accused. The accused took he said tractor to the jungle and when the night started to approach, he stopped his tractor near a 'Naari' and 'babul' trees and, on the pretest of urinating, he got down from the tractor. Thereafter, he fell down a bag (bori') of chilli from the trolley of the tractor. The accused also pulled the prosecutrix forcibly by hand and felled her down beneath the trolley of the tractor and committed rape with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, the accused pressed her mouth by his hands. Thereafter, the accused loaded the chilli bag ('bori') in the tractor and made her to sit on the tractor and took the tractor hither and thither. Then he took the tractor to Seriya (a place), where both sides, 'thor' trees were grown up. The accused again unloaded the chilli bag ('bori') and felled her down and committed rape (intercourse) with her. When she started to raise hue and cry, her mouth was shut down by the accused. Then he again loaded the chilli bag ('bori') and the prosecutrix in the tractor and went towards Chhapar. At Chhapar, he stopped the tractor, pulled her from the tractor and revished her. Lastly, he accused took the tractor along with prosecutrix near a pond ('taalab') and threatened to throw her in the pond and snatched from her forcibly gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of the occurrence along with the tractor. Then the prosecutrix reached village Aakoria and knocked the door of a house and took shelter for night there and revealed the incident to a lady, Smt. Tejkanwar. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that the rape has been committed by the accused with the prosecutrix thrice and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been snatched by him forcibly, so, strict action may be taken against the accused.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, as case under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC, was registered against the accused vide FIR Ex.P-5 and the investigation commenced.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. During the course of investigation, site was inspected and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was obtained, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P-2 and he was also got medically examined and. his medical examination report (Ex.P-2) was obtained, statements of witnesses, including the statement of Smt. Tejkanwar (Ex.P-11), were recorded, on the basis of the information (Ex.P-13) furnished by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 460/- were recovered from his possession. The accused disclosed during the course of investigation that out of Rs. 1000/-, he has, incurred Rs. 540/- and the remaining amount (Rs. 460/-) is lying in his pocket, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex. P-9) was prepared. Ghaghra of the prosecutrix was seized and sealed vide Ex. P-8 after the spots of semen on the Ghaghra were marked A, B and C. the. seized and sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through S.P. Office, Bhilwara and FSL report Ex,P-18 was received therefrom.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Section 376 and 392, IPC, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi, who committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. After hearing both the learned Counsel for he parties, charges under Sections 376 and 392 IPC, were framed against the accused. The same were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 12) and produced 18 documents (Exs.P1 to P-18). The accused examined to witness in defence. In the explanation recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he is innocent and due to enmity with Ramkunwar Jat, Sarpanch, he has been falsely implicated.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. After hearing the final submissions of both he learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 01.10.2002, as indicated above.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2002, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant appeal.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in law and fact in convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, whereas the essential ingredients constituting these offences are not established by the prosecution. Apart from that, the trial judge has not taken into consideration the checks and counter checks available on record, the trial Judge has also erred in believing the prosecutrix Mst. Chandi who is a false witness and her story is not believable. It is humanly impossible for a young man to commit rape with an elderly woman of 50-60 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecutrix has admitted that affidavit (Ex. D-1 was written on her volition and it is correct, except that the recitals in Ex.D-1 that 'no rape was committed and the false case is instituted' are wrong. This latter part of the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed, because she has categorically stated in the Court on oath that all the recitals in Ex.D-1 were got written at her instant and, thereafter, she put her thumb impression on it. She also deposed that she compromised the matter with he accused as Rs. 5000/- were to be paid to her. The amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga, who has not paid her the aforesaid amount.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the statement of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the statement of P.W. 6 Smt. Tej kanwar to whom she narrated the story at the first hand or by any witness. Apart from that, no evidence produced by the prosecution stands corroborated by the statement of the prosecutrix.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused- appellant that the Police has stage managed the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the accused and, according to the learned Counsel, the accused has been falsely implicated and convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 and 392, IPC, which is unsustainable. He also argued that the recovery of Rs. 460/- from the pocket of the accused at the time of his arrest, cannot tantamount to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution story is wholly false and fabricated and the accused was subjected to trial due to inimical relations with the then Sarpanch of the village. The prosecutrix herself has stated in the affidavit (Ex.D-1) both are contradictory to each other, so no reliance should be placed on them.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that Doctor has given the opinion in Ex.P-1 to the effect that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse. Apart from that, according to the Doctor, no injury was found on her private parts and the hymn was old torn.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>16. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecutrix first revealed the incident to Mst Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) but she has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, in the absence of any reliable witness, the conviction of the accused is not sustainable.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that it is a full proof case. He has referred to the certain facts and circumstances to establish that, in fact the rape was committed with her twice.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>18. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that no doubt, Smt. Tejkanwar (P.W. 6) has been declared hostile, but, despite that, her deposition corroborates the prosecution story that the offence has been committed by the accused-appellant only and none-else. He submits that even sole statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused. Apart from that, why an aged lady would falsely implicate the accused at the behest of the Sarpanch, this fact is also required to be taken into consideration. The accused has not only committed rape twice, but has snatched also Rs. 1000A and her gold tops.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>19. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though relative of the prosecutrix have succeeded in obtaining an affidavit from the prosecutrix, in which she stated that the case with respect to indecent of rape committed her on 24.8.99, registered against accused Narain, is false. But, in the statement, the prosecutrix Smt. Chandi (P.W. 3) has specifically deposed that on saying of brother of the accused that she would be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, an stamp was taken and executed. She further deposed that amount is lying with Vijay Singh Daroga and the amount has not been paid to her. She also deposed with respect of Ex. D-1 that in the affidavit, it is falsely stated that the rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. In her cross-examination, she has specifically deposed that the accused committed rape with her twice. Not only that, but he snatched gold tops and a sum of Rs. 1000/- from her forcibly. So far as Ex. D-1 is concerned, she has stated that the brother of the accused has stated her to compromise the matter for Rs. 5,000/-. The amount was not paid to her.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>20. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>21. P.W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Deedwania has deposed that the accused was well capable to commit sexual intercourse. P.W. 7 Ramkumar has deposed that about 3 years ago, at 8-9.00 a.m., Mst. Chandi had come to him and informed about the rape committed by the accused Narain. He also deposed that at that time, her Ghaghra was torn. Similarly, P.W. 9 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that on 25.8.99, he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotdi. Ex. P-4 report was submitted by Mst. Chandi before him. He recorded the same in the FIR vide Ex.P-5, inspected the site, prepared site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the amount from his possession. He got both the prosecutrix as well as accused medically examined, seized the ghaghra, having seem spots on it, and sealed the same and sent it to the FSL. According to the result of examination of he FSL report Ex.P-18, human semen was detected in packet marked Exhibit 1. The statement of the prosecutrix is also reliable, as she was and old lady and believed on the accused under the bonafide impression that he would get her chilli sold at the shop of his brother. She disclosed her age to be 60 years, but according to medical examination report, her age is about 50 years and the age of the accused is 35-40 years. P.W. 6 Smt. Tejkanwar, despite being declared hostile by the prosecution, her deposition stands corroborated from the prosecution story to the extent that after the incident, the prosecutrix went and stayed for night at the house and revealed the story of rape committed by the accused-appellant against her will and without her consent. The same also stands fortified from the statement (Ex. P-11) also. Apart from that, the statement of P.W. 7 Ramkunwar stands corroborated from the statement of the prosecutrix. The snatched amount (though Rs. 460A out of Rs. 1000/-) was recovered from the accused as he (the accused) himself has admitted in his disclosure statement (Ex. P-13) that he has made expenses of Rs. 540/-. It is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix that the accused forcibly snatched her gold tops and the amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the had he (the accused) not taken the amount and the gold tops from her (the prosecutrix) forcibly, by threatening her to throw her in he pond ('taalab'), then she would not have mentioned this fact in the FIR (Ex. P-5). Human semen was detected on the Ghaghra, which stands testified from the FSL report. So far as Ex. D-1, the affidavit, obtained by the brother of the accused from the prosecutrix is concerned, she (the prosecutrix, P.W. 3) has deposed in her cross-examination that it is falsely stated in Ex. D-1 that rape has not been committed with her and the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that brother of the accused wanted to her compromise the matter in Rs. 5,000/-, which was lying with Daroga Vijay Singh. Thus, from Ex. D-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, rather it fortifies the case of the prosecution. Merely on the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix medically, that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the rape has not committed rape with her. In fact, the accused-appellant committed rape forcibly with the prosecutrix twice against her will and without her consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that some contradictions are found in the statement of the witnesses, but they are of minor nature and the same cannot be regarded as material one. Minor discrepancies in the evidence do not hurt the prosecution case. The minor discrepancies guarantee that the witnesses have not been tutored. Hence, minor contradictions found in the statement of the witnesses would not affects their testimony.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>22. Thus, it is held that the above-mentioned circumstances, which have been firmly and cogently proved by the prosecution, form a complete chain without giving any room to hypothesis and are consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>23. There is sufficient evidence to connect the accused- appellant with the commission of the crime and the above mentioned circumstances from a chain so complete that there was no escape, from the conclusion that, with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused-appellant and none else. The circumstances are of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>24. For the reasons stated above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in convicting the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran for the offences under Section 376 and 392, IPC. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on sound reasonings coupled with the correct and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved and established guilt against the accused-appellant Narain @ Naran beyond reasonable doubt.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>25. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of convicting recorded by him against the accused- appellant Narain @ Naran.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>26. Consequently, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 28
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109