Partu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5340 Raj

                                          (1 of 3)                  [CRLA-532/1993]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 532/1993

Partu Ram S/o. Rawta Ram, by caste Jat, resident of Panusar,
Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu (Raj.)
(At present in Central Jail at Bikaner)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, Pro Bono
                                 Mr. IR Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                      Order

11/04/2022
     In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

     This criminal appeal has been preferred claiming for the

following relief:-

      "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal kindly be
      accepted and the judgement and conviction be set aside and accused
      appellant may be acquitted."


     Counsel for the appellant submits that a case was registered

on 25.02.1989 at P.S. Sardarshahar, Churu wherein allegation of

rape was alleged on a minor child of 13 years.

     Counsel for the appellant submits that the version given by

the eye-witness is not in consonance with the single track story of

prosecution.


                      (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:27:51 PM)
                                         (2 of 3)                [CRLA-532/1993]


     Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the doctor has

opined that the injury on hymen could have been caused due to

fall by some blunt object.

     Counsel for the appellant submits that there is discrepancy in

statements of PW-10 i.e. Hari Ram and PW-14 i.e. Tika, who

subsequently turned hostile during trial.

     Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court

to the statement of Jeevan Ram, who is an eye-witness of the

incident in-question and       stated that there is consistency in his

statement.

     This Court finds that the age of girl child is 13 years and

broadly the story has been proved with the help of the testimony

rendered by the eye-witness. The medical evidence is very clear.

The torn hymen is directly attributed to the rape in-question. The

age of prosecutrix has been established between 12-13.

     The order passed by learned trial court does not suffer from

any such error which create doubt in the story of the prosecution

nor the facts established during the trial.

     On conjoint reading of statements of prosecution witnesses

alongwith the evidence rendered by the doctors PW-6 i.e. Dr.

Bhanwarlal, PW-11 i.e. Dr. Lalchand & PW-13 i.e. Dr. Baid, all of

them connect the medical evidence with the allegations so made.

     After such elaborate consideration no cause of interference

can be made out in the present case. The present appeal, thus, is

dismissed.   The judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 14.12.1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Churu in Sessions Case No.76/93 (State Vs. Partu Ram) convicting



                    (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:27:51 PM)
                                                                             (3 of 3)                [CRLA-532/1993]


                                   the appellant under Section 376 IPC and awarding him sentence of

                                   07 years r.i. and a fine of Rs.10,000/- is affirmed.

                                         The appellant is on bail as per order passed by this Court

                                   dated 03.02.1994. His bail-bonds are cancelled. He is directed to

                                   surrender himself before the trial court forthwith, failing which,

                                   the trial court is directed to take necessary steps for his custody

                                   and to send him in jail to serve out the remaining part of his

                                   sentence.


                                                                 (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

45-Nirmala/Sanjay

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)