State Of Rajasthan vs Kailash @ Kera Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 3275 Raj

                                       (1 of 2)                  [CRLLA-116/2020]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 116/2020

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Kailash @ Kera Ram S/o Khema Ram, B/c Meghwal , R/o
Chhangadi , P.s. Nosra , Distt. Jalore
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
For Respondent(s)        :



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                    Order

03/03/2022

     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.

     Learned Public Prosecutor submits that serious offence under

the POSCO Act was alleged against the accused and thus the

inference drawn by learned trial Court upon the statement of PW-1

& PW-6 is not correct. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits

that the prosecutrix is consistent in her statement of alleging rape

and having been forcibly ravished.

     After hearing the submissions made by learned Public

Prosecutor as well as perusing the record of the case and the

impugned judgment, this Court finds that the father of the

prosecutrix PW-1 has admitted that birth of the prosecutrix was of

the year 2000. The secondary certificate indicates the date of birth


                    (Downloaded on 08/03/2022 at 08:18:07 PM)
                                                                          (2 of 2)                 [CRLLA-116/2020]



                                   of the prosecutrix to be 07.05.2001, which makes the prosecutrix

                                   age near to but less than 18 years. The incident of 06.09.2018

                                   has been reported on 14.09.2018 and no plausible reason has

                                   been furnished for the delay. The prosecutrix has repeatedly

                                   admitted that she was in telephonic contact with the present

                                   petitioner and used to speak to him and when she was taken on a

                                   cycle on the way in question, she neither protested and nor

                                   jumped from the cycle. The prosecutrix has admitted that she had

                                   called the petitioner as she wanted to go out and then she sat on

                                   the cycle of Kailash and went to Valdara Village, from where they

                                   went in Bus to Falna and then they travelled in train to Palanpur

                                   and from there, they went to Sidhpur and stayed there for about

                                   10 days, which were affirmed by the prosecutrix in her deposition

                                   before the trial Court. The allegation at Valgara village and

                                   Sidhpur village are conflicting in the statement of prosecutrix

                                   rendered under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as well as deposition

                                   before the Court and the statement of PW-1 are vague and do not

                                   induce confidence of learned trial Court. The detail deliberation

                                   made by learned trial court in its judgment is in accordance with

                                   law as no case beyond reasonable doubt has been proved against

                                   the present accused-respondent.

                                         In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to

                                   interfere in the impugned order. Hence, this criminal leave to

                                   appeal is dismissed.

                                                                (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

82-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)