Dismissed

Sugan Bai v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2017CRLA/445/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.A. 445 of 2013, appellant sought condonation of 746-day delay and appeal against acquittal of accused for rape charges. Bench rejected both condonation and appeal, finding trial court judgment consistent with evidence and prosecution story难以置信 due to lack of injuries and resistance.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay of 746 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the criminal appeal dismissed.

Sugan Bai Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 445 / 2013

¶3

Sugan Bai W/o Prem Chand, B/c Lodha, R/o Gram Jagpura, P.S. Bakani, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

Gangaram S/o Dev Chand, B/c Lodha, R/o Ganesh Pura, P.S. Bakani, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶8

Poonam Chand S/o Mangi Lal, B/c Lodha, R/o Jagpura, P.S. Bakani, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : None present

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

08/08/2017

¶15

None present on behalf of the complainant-appellant.

¶16

The application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 746 days in filing this appeal.

¶17

The reasons mentioned in the application for delay is that the complainant did not receive any information about order of acquittal in time. The reason does not appear convincing.

¶18

I have also considered the judgment impugned dated 06.04.2011 on merits, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted accused-respondents Gangaram and Poonam Chand of the charges for the offences under Sections 457, 376 (2) (g) IPC. The judgment impugned is found to be in consonance with the

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLA-445/2013]

¶21

evidence, and it does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶22

Despite the allegation of committing rape by three persons, the prosecutrix has admitted that no injury was caused on her body. She has also admitted that she did not make any resistance. The husband of the prosecutrix PW-2 Prem Chand is said to have gone to agricultural fields to irrigate the field on fateful night. But he has admitted in his cross-examination that there was power cut during that night. In this situation his statement does not appear correct that he was out of his house when the alleged offence of rape was committed. PW-2 Prem Chand has also admitted in his cross-examination that when he returned home, he did not find any injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. The household articles were not found disturbed. This also creates suspicion about the prosecution story.

¶23

PW-13 Dr. Anil Kaushik who examined the prosecutrix has also stated that no injury was found on her breast or on private parts or on other parts of her body.

¶24

Father-in-law of prosecutrix PW-12 Bhanwarlal was allegedly present on the fateful night in the house where the alleged offence was committed. He has stated in his cross-examination that he did not hear any sound as he was sleeping. It does not sound convincing that despite the offence of rape being committed by three persons, no hue and cry or sound was raised and the sleep of Bhanwarlal could not get disturbed. He has also admitted that the clothes of prosecutrix were not found torn and the mattresses were not in disturbed situation. This situation further shatters the prosecution story.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLA-445/2013]

¶27

Learned trial Court has taken all these facts into consideration while acquitting the accused-respondents. The reason given by learned trial Court for acquitting the accusedpersons are convincing and appeal to the logic. Thus, no case is found even on merits to allow the appeal as well to allow the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning inordinate delay of 746 days.

¶28

In view of the above, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as well as the criminal appeal deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

¶30

Arun/6

Sugan Bai v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugan Bai v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs Nisthan Dewakar and Others

Vinay Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs Dinesh Kotewala

Farid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Manju Bansal @Manju Lata B Vs Raghuvir Sharma andORS

Suresh Chand Sani Vs Prabudayal and Ors.