Bhabuti vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 6256 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 272/1985

1.Bhabuti (Died) s/o Hukami @ Hukam Singh, r/o village
Hinnota, PS Maniya, District Dholpur.
2.Amar Singh (Died) s/o Hukami @ Hukam Singh, r/o village
Hinnota, PS Maniya, District Dholpur.
3.Phoola (Died) s/o Hukami @ Hukam Singh, r/o village Hinnota,
PS Maniya, District Dholpur.
4.Ranveer son of Daulat Ram, resident of village Barelapura, PS
Basai Dong, District Dholpur (At present in District Jail, Dholpur)
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. Rinesh Gupta,
                               Mr. Tanay Jain,
                               Mr. Anoop Meena
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Atul Sharma, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 13.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 20.09.2022

Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment &

order dated 24.05.1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.06/1983(126/82), whereby

appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence(s)

punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 IPC besides accused

appellants Ranveer and Phoola were also convicted under Section

376 IPC. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants

reads as under:-

(2 of 5) [CRLA-272/1985]

Bhabuti, Amar Singh, Phoola and Ranveer Singh

U/s 363 IPC- Three years rigorous imprisonment and a

fine of Rs.100/- each and in default one

month simple imprisonment.

U/s 366 IPC- Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine

of Rs.200/- each and in default two months

simple imprisonment.

U/s 368 IPC- Three years rigorous imprisonment and a

fine of Rs.200/- each and in default two

months simple imprisonment.

Phoola and Ranveer

U/s 376 IPC- Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine

of Rs.300/- and in default three months

rigorous imprisonment.

All the sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

During the pendency of appeal, appellant No.1-Bhabuti,

appellant No.2-Amar Singh and appellant No.3 Phoola died. So,

appeal is abated qua the said appellants.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Mihi Lal submitted a report

at Police Station Maniya, District Bharatpur on 21.09.1980 that

when he was sleeping in his house alongwith his daughters and

wife in the mid-night, 10 to 12 persons with lethal weapons

entered in his house. By force, they took her daughter Ram Bai

and also inflicted the injuries to his wife Ganga Devi.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,

charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366, 368 IPC was filed against

the accused persons. During trial, on the application of Public

Prosecutor, learned trial Court took cognizance against the

(3 of 5) [CRLA-272/1985]

appellants Phoola and Ranveer for the offence under Section 376

IPC. Charges were framed against the appellants.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 8

witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code Of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had

been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined four

witnesses in his defence.

Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 24.05.1985,

ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Hence, the

present appeal filed by the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.4-Ranveer submits that

the trial Court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence

of the appellant and also submits that the learned trial Court had

not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned

counsel for the appellant No.4-Ranveer further submits that the

prosecutrix-Ram Bai was not recovered for more than two years.

After that, she came to the house of her father. Learned counsel

for the appellant No.4-Ranveer also submits that the learned trial

Court wrongly took cognizance against the appellant under Section

376 IPC because Investigating Officer had not found the offence

under Section 376 IPC proved. Learned counsel for the appellant

No.4-Ranveer further submits that medical evidence was not

examined because no medical examination regarding rape was

done. Learned counsel for the appellant No.4-Ranveer also

submits that in defence, there is clear cut evidence that Ram Bai

was married to Phoola and she had not complained to anyone.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.4-Ranveer also submits that

the learned trial Court wrongly read the evidence of Ram Bai.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.4-Ranveer further submits

(4 of 5) [CRLA-272/1985]

that Ganga Devi had not received any injury. Learned counsel for

the appellant No.4-Ranveer also submits that the Investigating

Officer-Pooram Singh in his cross-examination admitted that

complainant-Mihi Lal was cultivating the field of accused appellant

and he was living there. Learned counsel for the appellant No.4-

Ranveer further submits that prosecutrix Ram Bai in her cross-

examination admitted that her mother came to meet her in

Village-Hinnota. So, there is no evidence that Ram Bai was

forcefully abducted by the appellant. Alternatively, learned counsel

for the appellant No.4-Ranveer prays that if Court comes to

conclusion and upheld the conviction then appellant No.4-Ranveer

be released on sentence already undergone.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellant No.4-Ranveer and

submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the

learned trial Court.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that after investigation,

offence under Section 376 IPC was not proved against the

appellant. Trial Court took cognizance under Section 376 IPC

against the appellant No.4-Ranveer on the application of the Public

Prosecutor. It is an admitted position that no medical examination

regarding rape was conducted during investigation and no medical

officer was examined to prove the offence of rape. Prosecutrix

lived with the accused for more than two years. After she came to

her house, she had not complained at that time anyone regarding

her forcefully abduction and rape. Investigating Officer in his

cross-examination clearly admitted the fact that the complainant

(5 of 5) [CRLA-272/1985]

Mihi Lal was cultivating the field of the accused appellant. It is also

admitted position that during so-called abduction period, mother

of the prosecutrix visited the house of the appellant but

prosecutrix had not complained regarding abduction. So, in my

considered opinion, learned trial Court wrongly convicted the

appellant No.4-Ranveer under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376

IPC. So, appeal filed by the appellant No.4-Ranveer deserves to be

allowed.

Appeal filed by the appellant No.4-Ranveer is allowed.

Order of the learned trial Court dated 24.05.1985 regarding

conviction of the appellant No.4-Ranveer under Sections 363, 366,

368 and 376 IPC is set-aside. Appellant No.4-Ranveer is acquitted

of the above mentioned charges.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.,

appellant namely Ranveer son of Daulat Ram is directed to

furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in

the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which

shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that

in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the

judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt

of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)