[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rupa Alias Rupaji Bheel vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13615-DB]
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application
(Appeal) No. 1192/2025
Rupa Alias Rupaji Bheel S/o Varda Bheel, Aged About 26 Years,
Sripura, Police Station Bhainsrodgarh Tehsil Rawatbhata District
Chittorgarh.
(Presently Lodged At The Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Pp At Jodhpur.
----Respondent
Connected with
(2) D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 212/2025
Rupa Alias Rupaji Bheel S/o Varda Bheel, Aged About 26 Years,
Sripura, Police Station Bhainsrodgarh Tehsil Rawatbhata District
Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged At The Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned PP At Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
23/03/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Although the matter is listed on an application preferred by
the applicant-appellant seeking suspension of sentence, learned
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that he does not want
to press the said application.
3. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant-appellant
seeking suspension of sentence is dismissed as not pressed.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant
prays that the appeal itself may be heard finally.
5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main
appeal is taken up for final hearing and is heard and decided
accordingly by this order.
6. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.)
by the accused-appellant Roopa @ Roop Lal Bheel, assailing the
legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 02.12.2024
passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Begun,
District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial
court") in Sessions Case No.118/2021 (175/2018), whereby the
accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as under:-
376 Life imprisonment and Fine of In default of payment of fine
IPC Rs.10,000/- to further undergo 3 year's
Simple Imprisonment.
7. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix Rekha wife of
Devilal Bhil, submitted a written report on 14.08.2018 alleging
that on 13.08.2018 at about 2:00 PM, she had gone along with a
minor girl, Durga (aged about 9 years), to a pond for washing
clothes and bathing. It is alleged that after she had washed her
clothes and was about to bathe, the accused Rupa @ Roopa, son
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
of Barda Bhil, resident of village Shripura, suddenly arrived there.
Despite being asked to leave, the accused threatened the
prosecutrix and, taking advantage of her being alone, forcibly
lifted her and took her to nearby bushes. It is further alleged that
the accused-appellant undressed her and then removed his
clothes and then committed rape upon her. She further alleged in
the report that the accused gagged the prosecutrix to prevent her
from raising alarm and continued the act for some time.
Thereafter, the accused-appellant threatened the prosecutrix with
dire consequences, including threat to life, if she discloses the
incident to anyone. It is further alleged in the report that after the
occurrence, the prosecutrix returned to home and narrated the
incident to her husband Devilal, her mother-in-law Kalibai and one
Surajmal. Upon being confronted, the accused-appellant
threatened them as well, warning them not to report the matter to
the police.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a formal FIR No.
61/2018 came to be registered at Police Station Bhensrodgarh,
Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code.
9. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the
accused-appellant before the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh.
10. Learned trial court, upon taking cognizance, framed charges
against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-
appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial.
11. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-18 along with along
with 2 Articles.
12. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution allegations
in toto and claimed to be innocent, asserting that he had been
falsely implicated in the present case. No defence evidence was
led.
13. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section
376 IPC vide judgment dated 02.12.2024.
14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned trial
court; the accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal
before this Court.
15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
impugned judgment and order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh is
wholly illegal, perverse and unsustainable in the eye of law, and
the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
16. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the findings
recorded by the learned trial court are contrary to the material
available on record as well as the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence.
17. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the material
contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements in the
statements of the prosecutrix (P.W.01 Smt. Rekha) recorded at
different stages i.e. at the time of lodging the FIR and at the time
of deposition before the learned trial court. These discrepancies go
to the root of the case and seriously affect the credibility and
reliability of the prosecution story, and thus, the conviction based
solely on such unreliable testimony cannot be sustained.
18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR. Though the alleged incident said to have occurred on
13.08.2018, the FIR was registered belatedly without any
satisfactory explanation. Such delay creates a serious doubt
regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case and raises the
possibility of false implication.
19. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
prosecution has failed to produce any cogent medical or forensic
evidence to substantiate the allegation of rape. The medical
examination conducted by P.W.08 Dr. Gangu Jivaji Parmar does
not indicate any injuries suggestive of forcible sexual assault and
the FSL report (Ex.P-14) also does not conclusively connect the
accused-appellant with the alleged commission of offence. The
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
absence of such crucial corroborative evidence renders the
prosecution case doubtful.
20. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
statements of alleged corroborative witnesses, namely P.W.02
Devilal and P.W.03 Kalibai, are purely hearsay in nature and based
on what was allegedly told to them by the prosecutrix. Being
interested witnesses, their testimonies lack independent
corroboration and could not have been relied upon by the learned
trial court for recording conviction against the accused-appellant.
He further submits that no independent witness has been
examined by the prosecution, despite the alleged incident having
taken place at a public place near a "khal" in a village where the
presence of other persons is quite natural. The absence of
independent corroboration raises serious doubt about the veracity
of the prosecution case.
21. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits
that the learned trial court has failed to properly consider the
defence of the accused-appellant as taken in his statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he categorically
denied the allegations and claimed false implication. The
possibility of false implication has not been adequately considered
by the learned trial court. He further submits that the learned trial
court has mechanically recorded the conviction without proper
appreciation of evidence and without applying the fundamental
principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment is based on
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
conjectures and surmises rather than on legally admissible
evidence.
22. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
prosecution case is not consistent and suffers from material
contradictions among the witnesses, which have not been properly
addressed by the learned trial court. The findings recorded are
thus not based on a sound and logical appreciation of evidence.
He also submits that the evidence available on record is wholly
insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant and
there is no reliable material connecting him with the alleged
commission of offence. The conviction is thus contrary to the
weight of evidence and settled principles of law.
23. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the
impugned judgment suffers from misinterpretation and selective
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and has been
passed without proper consideration of the merits of the case. He
further submits that the learned trial court has failed to apply the
settled principle that any reasonable doubt arising from the
evidence must ensure to give benefit of doubt to the accused-
appellant. The material on record raises serious doubts regarding
the prosecution case, which ought to have resulted in acquittal of
the accused-appellant.
24. Lastly, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits
that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant is excessively
harsh and disproportionate. The learned trial court has failed to
consider mitigating circumstances, including the possibility of the
appellant being a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
Even otherwise, a more lenient and proportionate sentence ought
to have been awarded by the learned trial court in the present
facts and circumstances of the case.
25. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
accused-appellant prays that the impugned judgment and order of
sentence may be set aside and the accused-appellant may be
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
26. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-
appellant and has supported the findings recorded by the learned
trial court. He submits that the impugned judgment dated
02.12.2024 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and that
the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has been rightly recorded on
the basis of reliable and cogent evidence available on record.
27. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully re-appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record including the impugned judgment
dated 02.12.2024.
28. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence available
on record, it emerges that P.W.01 Rekha (the prosecutrix) has, in
her deposition, fully supported the prosecution case. She stated
that on the date of the incident at about 2:00 PM, she was present
near a "khal" at village Shripura and at that time the accused-
appellant Rupa @ Ruplal arrived there, threatened her and forcibly
took her to nearby bushes. She further deposed that the accused-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
appellant undressed her and committed forcible sexual intercourse
against her will, and whenever she attempted to raise alarm, he
gagged her and assaulted her. The accused-appellant also
threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses the
incident. She thereafter returned home and narrated the
occurrence to her husband and family members, and on the
following day, the report was lodged. The prosecutrix identified the
accused-appellant present in the Court and proved the written
report (Ex.P-01), site inspection memo (Ex.P-02), medical report
(Ex.P-03), seizure memo of ghagra (Ex.P-04), and her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-06). Despite extensive
cross-examination, her testimony remained consistent and
trustworthy, and no material contradiction could be elicited to
discredit her version.
29. P.W.02 Devilal, husband of the prosecutrix, corroborated the
version of the prosecutrix to the extent that she narrated the
incident to him soon after its occurrence. He stated that the
accused-appellant had forcibly taken his wife and committed rape
upon her. He also proved the relevant documents including the
site plan (Ex.P-02), seizure memo (Ex.P-04) and FIR (Ex.P-01).
His testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination.
30. P.W.03 Kalibai, mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, also
supported the prosecution case and deposed that she came to
know about the incident from the prosecutrix and thereafter
accompanied her to lodge the report. She denied the defence
suggestion regarding any false implication on demand of rupees
one lakh from the accused-appellant and that since the accused-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
appellant failed to pay the amount, false case was subsequently
instituted against him.
31. P.W.04 Modulal, stated that in his presence, the site
inspection memo (Ex.P-02) and seizure memo (Ex.P-04) were
prepared and his thumb impressions were obtained on the said
documents at the spot. He denied the suggestion that his
signatures were taken on blank papers. P.W.05 Surajmal, though
declared hostile, but it does not materially affect the prosecution
case.
32. P.W.06 Ramesh Chandra, a constable, proved the arrest
memo of the accused (Ex.P-11), seizure memo of underwear
(Ex.P-10) and the memorandum prepared at the instance of the
accused-appellant (Ex.P-09), where P.W.01 Rekha (the
prosecutrix) washing clothes at this very place. His testimony
establishes the procedural steps taken during investigation. P.W.07
Dr. Pallavi singh (Medical Officer of the prosecutrix) stated that no
external injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix;
however, this by itself does not negate the allegation of rape.
33. P.W.08 Dr. Gangu Jivaji Parmar, who conducted the potency
test of the accused-appellant, opined that the accused-appellant
was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The medical report
of potency is Ex.P-13 and the FSL report is Ex.P-14.
34. P.W.09 Satyanarayan proved the forwarding of samples to
the FSL and the relevant documentation (Ex.P-15), establishing
proper chain of investigation done by the Investigating Agency.
35. P.W.10 Parvat Singh, the Investigating Officer, proved the
registration of FIR (Ex.P-01), preparation of site plan (Ex.P-02),
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
seizure of articles (Ex.P-04 and Ex.P-10), recording of statements,
arrest of the accused (Ex.P-11), and sending of samples for FSL
examination (Ex.P-17). His testimony supports the fairness of the
investigation. P.W.11 Baldhari Singh corroborated the arrest and
seizure proceedings.
36. P.W.12 Bhanwarlal, the Malkhana in-charge, proved the safe
custody of seized articles and their dispatch to the FSL,
maintaining the chain of evidence. P.W.13 Gopal Nath proved the
filing of the charge-sheet after completion of investigation. During
cross-examination, P.W.13 stated that it is true that the
statements of the witnesses recorded in the case file were not
personally recorded by him and that the samples related to the
accused's potency were not collected by him, but he stated that it
is incorrect to suggest that there was a love affair between the
accused-appellant and the prosecutrix. P.W.14 Deshraj proved the
delivery of sealed samples to the FSL, Udaipur and receipt thereof
(Ex.P-18).
37. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is
observed that nothing material has emerged from the testimony
of P.W.01, which may create any doubt that the accused-appellant
did not engage in forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix
against her will. P.W.02, Devilal husband of the prosecutrix has
deposed that the accused-appellant forcibly took away his wife
and committed rape upon her against her will. His testimony
stands duly corroborated on material particulars, and nothing has
been elicited in his cross-examination so as to cast doubt on his
credibility. P.W.04, Modulal, in his cross-examination, has clarified
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
that it is incorrect to suggest that the place where people bathe on
the rock is visible from the puliya; rather, there exist Babool trees
and other vegetation in between, obstructing visibility. He has
further denied the suggestion that his thumb impression was
obtained by the police on a blank paper.
38. P.W.06-Ramesh chandra has proved that on 23.08.2018,
while he posted as a Constable at Police Station Bhainsrorgarh,
the accused Rupa @ Ruplal Bhil was arrested in connection with
Case No. 61/2018 lodged under Section 376 IPC in his presence
and in the presence of Constable Baldhari Singh. He has further
deposed that on the same day, the underwear worn by the
accused-appellant at the time of the incident was also seized. He
has also proved that pursuant to the information furnished by the
accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
the investigating agency proceeded to the place of occurrence
near a Khal, where the accused-appellant pointed out the exact
spot of the incident. The memorandum of site identification
(Exhibit P-09), the seizure memo of the underwear (Exhibit P-10),
and the arrest memo (Exhibit P-11) have been duly proved by this
witness, bearing his signatures at the relevant places. Thus, the
arrest of the accused-appellant, recovery of incriminating articles,
and identification of the place of occurrence stand duly established
through his testimony.
39. As per the FSL report (Exhibit P-14), human semen was
detected on the underwear seized from the accused-appellant.
This scientific evidence lends further corroboration to the
prosecution case. With regard to the contention concerning the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
prosecutrix being habituated to sexual intercourse, it is observed
that the prosecutrix is a married woman, and such a consideration
is immaterial in determining the question of consent. Dr. Pallavi
Singh (P.W. 07), the Medical Officer, has stated that no external
injury marks were found on the body of the prosecutrix. However,
absence of injuries is not decisive, particularly when the
prosecutrix has consistently and unequivocally stated in her
deposition recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and in the First
Information Report that the accused-appellant forcibly abducted
her and committed rape upon her against her will and without her
consent. The prosecutrix has also categorically denied any prior
relationship or consensual involvement with the accused-appellant
Ruplal, and has duly identified the place of occurrence. The
medical evidence further establishes that the accused-appellant
was capable of performing sexual intercourse.
40. From the cumulative appreciation of the evidence,
particularly the cogent and reliable testimony of the prosecutrix,
which stands corroborated by surrounding circumstances and
other prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the accused-
appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix
against her will and without her consent. The minor discrepancies
and absence of injuries do not go to the root of the case so as to
discredit the prosecution version. The defence has failed to
probabilise its case or create any reasonable doubt.
41. In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution has
successfully established the guilt of the accused-appellant Roopa
@ Roop Lal Bheel, for committing the offence punishable under
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13711-DB] (14 of 14) [CRLAD-212/2025]
Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court
thus has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for
commission of the aforesaid offence.
42. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have also heard
learned counsel for accused-appellant and have carefully
considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
entire material available on record. We are of the considered view
that the learned trial court has rightly passed the sentence against
the accused-appellant and therefore no interference in the same is
warranted.
43. In view of aforesaid discussions, we find no infirmity or
perversity in the findings recorded by learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh below convicting
and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under
Section 376 of the IPC. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 02.12.2024 is hereby upheld.
44. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
45. Office is directed to send the record forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
34/C-1-Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 09:56:22 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
