{"id":131717,"date":"2009-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-30T20:41:47","modified_gmt":"2015-01-30T15:11:47","slug":"bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009<\/div>\n
    \n\n \n \n \n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR\n\nJUDGMENT \n\n(1) MEGHRAJ SINGH  vs. STATE OF RAJ. \n \nSB Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2006 under Section 374  Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated November 17, 2005  of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur  in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2005  whereby the accused appellant has been  convicted and sentenced for the offence under   section 376 IPC to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000\/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer  six months  simple imprisonment. \n \n\n(2) BHOOP  SINGH  vs. STATE OF RAJ. \n \nSB Criminal Appeal No. 1121 of 2005 under Section 374  Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated November 17, 2005  of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur  in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2004 whereby the accused appellant has been  convicted and sentenced for the offence under   section 376 read with section 114 IPC to suffer 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000\/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer  three  months  simple imprisonment. \nREPORTABLE\n\nDate of Order\t\t:    September 8,   2009\n\nPRESENT\n\nHONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA\n\nMr. Suresh Pareek  for the appellant.\nMr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. \n \n\n      BY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
 \t\t The appellants  Meghraj Singh  and Bhoop Singh  have filed these two appeals   against the judgment dated November 17, 2005  of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur  in Sessions Cases No. 30 of 2004 and 22 of 2005  whereby the accused appellant Meghraj Singh  was  convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 376 IPC to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000\/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer  six months  simple imprisonment, whereas appellant Bhoop Singh was convicted under section 376 read with section 114 IPC and sentenced to suffer 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000\/- in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 months simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
2.     It may be mentioned here that both the accused appellants were co-accused in an FIR registered against them and investigation was done against them but accused appellant Bhoop Singh was arrested on 27.12.2003 and accused appellant Meghraj Singh absconded. Trial against Bhoop Singh  was completed  and thereafter Meghraj Singh was arrested and again trial court recorded the statements of the witnesses.   As both the accused appellants were co-accused in the FIR No.361 of 2003, the judgment in both the sessions cases was pronounced only after completion of trial in the case of Meghraj Singh. Both the  accused appellants  were convicted and sentenced vide  combined judgment dated November 17, 2005 as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tSince the accused appellants were co-accused in an FIR No.361 dated 30.8.2003, both these appeals are being disposed by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tBrief facts of the case are that  Virendra Singh lodged a written report on August 30, 2003 at 9.45 a.m. that on August 30, 2003 in the night at 1.45 a.m. when he was sleeping at his residence  he heard hue and  cries.  He immediately rushed to the house of Vijay Singh and found that cries were of Mamta, who is daughter of his uncle from the house of Bhoop Singh. Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh caught hold of Mamta.   Other persons were also collected at the residence of Bhoop Singh but Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh ran away from the roof side.  On asking Mamta she stated that when she was sleeping on the roof of her house Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh gaged her mouth with cloth and taken her away to the house of Bhoop Singh where Meghraj Singh raped her and Bhoop Singh facilitated Meghraj Singh to commit rape on her. At that time she was  naked and not wearing her Salvar.  Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh threatened her not to say to anybody otherwise they will kill her all family members. She stated that they also given beating to her.  After investigation, the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate.  Challan was filed against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 376 and 376\/114 IPC. In Sessions Case No.30 of 2004 charge was framed against Bhoop Singh vide order dated 30.6.2004  for the offence under section 376\/ 114 IPC.  The prosecution in support of its case examined PW.1 Virendra Singh, PW.2 Bhoodevsingh, PW.3 Maharaj Singh. PW.4 Harnam Singh, PW.5 Smt. Dulari, PW.6 Mamta, PW.7 Dr. Usha Gupta. PW.8 Satyaprakash, PW.9  Hariram, PW.10 Prem Shanker, PW.11 Dr. Vinaykumar Atrey, and  PW.12 Lakhansingh Khatana. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused Bhoop singh himself appeared as DW.1 and stated that on 29.8.2003 at 6-7 p.m. Virendra Singh gave beating to Meghraj.  Meghraj received injuries.  FIR was lodged, which is Ex. P.6.  His injuries were examined by the doctor vide Ex. P.7. X-ray was also done which is Ex. P.8.  Site map of place of incident was also prepared which is Ex. P.9.  In the cross examination, he himself admitted the age of prosecutrix to be 14 years.\n<\/p>\n
      After arrest of accused Meghraj Singh, the trial court framed charge against him for the offence under section 376 IPC on  July 27, 2005. The prosecution in support of its case produced PW.1 Dr. Usha Gupta, PW.2 Hariram, PW.3 Lakhan Singh Khatana, PW.4 Virendra Singh, PW.5 Bhoodev, PW.6 Maharaj Singh, PW.7 Dr. Vinay Kumar Atrey, PW.8 Smt. Dulari, PW.9 Harnam Singh, PW.10 Chandan Singh, PW.11 Mamta  and PW.12 Kulraj Singh.  Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.  In defence one Ramsaran was produced.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the Public Prosecutor vide judgment dated  November 17, 2005 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
4.      Mr. Suresh Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submitted written submissions and prayed that the accused appellants   may be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.  In the written arguments, the learned counsel stated that the version of the prosecution withsses is very unnatural because of the reason that both the accused appellants are real brothers and it is against the human nature that in presence of  elder brother the younger brother could commit rape and more so the elder brother assists the younger brother to commit rape.  This version is unnatural and unbelievable.  It is unbelievable that the accused appellant Megh Raj taken the prosecutrix  in lap and came down by wooden ladder and the prosecutrix who is about 19 years of age did not make any hue and cry. Both the accused appellants are adjacent  neighbours of the prosecutrix. The accused appellant  Meghraj  carryaing a Parchuni shop in the village and the family members of the prosecutrix used to get the goods and articles daily on borrow  and when the accused Meghraj  demanded  the outstanding money then the false story has been concocted by the prosecutrix and her family members to implicate both the brothers. On demand of money, quarrel  took place between the accused appellants  and the family members of the  prosecutrix on 29.8.2003 and accused appellant Meghraj sustained grievous injuries for which he lodged a report at Police Station Kumher. The said case is still pending.  Due to this enmity the false report has been lodged.  From the medical report the offence alleged  against the accused appellant has not been proved.  It is clearly revealed from the Medical report Ex. P.7 that there is no evidence of committing rape.  No injuries were  found on the private parts or on body of the prosecutrix.  Apart from it  Dr. Usha Gupta clearly  stated on oath that  there was no sign  of rape and there was no injury on the private parts and body of the prosecutrix. There are major contradictions  in the statements of the prosecutrix Mamta recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., and under section  164 Cr.P.c. and in the court  statements.  There are major and material contradictions in every statement of the prosecutrix. Four time her statements were record and every time she changed her version. As such the statements  of the prosecutrix are not trustworthy and the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.  It is well settled principle of criminal law  that the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable  doubt.  In the instant case the prosecution completely failed to prove the guilt.  In defence admission register  of the school has been placed before  the trial court as Ex. D.10.  According to this register the date of birth of the prosecutrix is  3.1.1984 and at the alleged time of occurrence she was of  about 19 years  of age.   Whereas all the prosecution witnesses have stated her age below 16 years.  Regarding the age of  the prosecutrix the statements of Head Master Ram Sharan  Dw.1 recorded before the trial court.  But the trial court  ignored the material available on record. Against Bhoop Singh  there is no charge of  committing rape.  He is about 65 years of age and there is no bad antecedents.  The accused appellant Megh Raj  already undergone  abut 4 years and two months sentence and the another accused  Bhoop Singh also remained  in custody for more than one year.  Both the accused appellants are  having  their families and  if they are not acquitted from the charges levelled against them then the entire family will be ruined.  Learned counsel placed reliance on Mangi Ram @ Mangi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan<\/a> 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 264, Shakoor vs. State of Rajasthan<\/a> 2001 Cr.L.R841 and State of Rajasthan vs. Jeeya 1983 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 528.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe learned Public Prosecutor  on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction  and argued that the accused appellants Meghraj Singh and Bhoop Singh taken Mamta, who was sleeping at her residence, at the residence of Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh committed rape on Mamta and further they gave beating to Mamta and stated to her that if it is stated to anybody they will kill her all family members. Mamta was found in naked condition in the house of Bhoop Singh. The Salvar and vaginal swab sent to the FSL, confirmed rape committed on her. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper.  The trial court critically examined the material available on record and judgment of conviction is based on evidence and the accused appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced.\n<\/p>\n
6.  I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the relevant evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
7.         In the statement under section 164, the prosecutrix Mamta implicated the appellant Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. Her statement before the court of Judicial Magistrate No.4 Bharatpur was recorded on September 27, 2003 i.e. after one month of the  incident. She started her statement before the court that one month before in the night at 1 p.m. she was sleeping at her residence’s roof. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping  Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and gave beating to her.  In the statement she  stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????????????? ? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????\n<\/p>\n
       In the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Mamta, prosecutrix implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj.   The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping  Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. In the statement to the police she stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “?? ?? ??? ???? 11.30 ??.??. ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ? ???? ??? ?????? ? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ( ????? ?? ) ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???  ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???”\n<\/p>\n
     In the trial in case No.30 of 2004 against Bhoop Singh, the prosecutrix Mamta (PW.6)implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj.   The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping  Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. In her court statement she stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
  30.8.2003 ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???  ?? ?? ?? ???? ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??  ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???-??? ????? ?? ?? ????  ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???????????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????  ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???\n<\/p>\n
      In the statement before the court in Sessions case No.22 of 2005 Mamta (PW.11) prosecutrix  implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj.   The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when she was sleeping  Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her.  In the court statement she  stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
    30.8.03 ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??, ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???\n<\/p>\n
\t???????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???\n<\/p>\n
           In the statement before the court PW.1 Dr. Usha Gupta (in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005) stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??.??. ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??.??.??. ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ….. ???? 16 ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ????? ??? …. ??.??.??. ??????? ??????? ??.2 ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???\n<\/p>\n
         It is clear from her statement that she has given definite opinion about rape on the basis of the FSL report committed by the accused appellant Meghraj on the prosecutrix Mamta.\n<\/p>\n
       In the statement before the court PW.4 Virendra ( in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005) implicated the accused appellants Bhoop Singh  and Meghraj.  He has seen both the appellants running from the roop and seen them caught hold of Mamta. Virendra stated in his statement as  under :\n<\/p>\n
   “?????? 30.8.2003 ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????????, ??????? ????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??, ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ? ??? ??, ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? 100-150 ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????, ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????, ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????, ???? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????  ?? ? ???? ???? ?? ???”\n<\/p>\n
        In the statement before the court PW.5 Bhoodev stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
   “??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????????, ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ”\n<\/p>\n
          \tn the statement before the court PW.8 Dulari, who is mother of the prosecutrix stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
   “???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ? ????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???”\n<\/p>\n
    In the FSL report Ex.P.2  dated 12.5.2005,  it was stated that human semen was detected in Exhibits No. 1 (from packet marked A) and  4 (from C).  A and C were Salwar and Vaginal smear.\n<\/p>\n
8.      From the above it is clear that Bhoop Singh and Meghraj Singh in the first instance taken Mamta at the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh, Meghraj Singh committed rape with prosecutrix Mamta, which is proved by the statement of Mamta Prosecutrix, in his statement before the police, in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.c. , in her statements before the courts in both the cases, which are also corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Usha Gupta, who stated in her statement that rape was committed with the prosecutrix supported by the FSL report Ex.P.2 that human semen was found in the vaginal swab and salvar recovered by the police and sent for FSL. The accused appellant Meghraj Singh committed rape with the prosecutrix Mamta at the residence of Bhoop Singh and Bhoop Singh in the first instance facilitated Meghraj  Singh and taken away Mamta at his residence and further facilitated him to commit rape on Mamta. As per evidence it is also proved that the accused appellants ran away from the house. Bhoop Singh appellant was arrested only on 27.12.2003. The appellant Meghraj Singh was arrested on 16.5.2005. The FIR was lodged by Meghraj Singh for the incident of 29.8.2003 on 30.8.2003 after registering of the FIR of rape  by Virendra Singh. The FIR of Virendra Singh was lodged at 9.45 on 30.8.2003 which bears No.361 whereas the FIR lodged by Meghraj Singh at 5.5 p.m. which bears No.362. It is true that the villagers gave beating to Meghraj Singh and in that course of time he might have received injuries and those injuries were examined by the doctors Ex.D.8 at  11.15 a.m. on 30.8.2003. It appears that only to get pressure on the prosecution witnesses in the rape case, the appellant Meghraj Singh lodged the report at 11.55 a.m. on 30.8.2003. The trial court also did not believe the defence witness of accused appellant Bhoop Singh in his case and defence witness of Ramsharan, who stated that the age of prosecutrix is 19 years.  The accused appellant  Bhoop Singh, himself, who is neighbour of prosecutrix Mamta, stated her age in his defence witness that she is 14 years of age. The defence witnesses were not believed by the trial court in these circumstances.  Thus Meghraj Singh was rightly convicted under section 376 IPC and Bhoop Singh was rightly convicted under section 376 read with section 114 IPC as he first helped Meghraj Singh in procuring Mamta at his residence and thereafter facilitated him to commit rape on Mamta by him. I have also gone through the defence produced by the accused appellants and I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court in this regard. The defence was rightly rejected by the trial court. The arguments of the learned counsel in this respect is also devoid of merit and hence rejected.  The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant  Meghraj under section 376 IPC and  accused appellant Bhoop Singh under section 376\/114 IPC.  The appellant Meghraj Singh was sentenced 7 years RI and since the appellant Bhoop Singh was aged about 65 years taking lenient view he has been sentenced 5 years RI with fine.   I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court.  The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellants cannot be said to be perverse.   The cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.   The judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
9.        For the foregoing reasons the appeals filed by the accused appellants Meghraj Singh and Bhoop Singh ( Appeals Nos. 38 of 2006 and 1121 of 2005) being devoid of merit stand dismissed.  The accused appellant Meghraj Singh is in jail, he  shall serve the remaining sentence. The sentence of accused appellant Bhoop Singh was suspended by this court on 13.1.2006 and he is on bail,  he shall be taken in custody forthwith for serving out the remaining sentence.  In absence of deposit of fine the accused appellants shall also serve further sentence as ordered by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
         However, the State Government is directed to consider the cases of the accused appellants under Section 432 Cr.P.C. for granting them the benefit of remission in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                    (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.\n<\/p>\n
OPPareek\/  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT (1) MEGHRAJ SINGH vs. STATE OF RAJ. SB Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2006 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated November 17, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-30T15:11:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T15:11:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2728,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T15:11:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-30T15:11:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T15:11:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009"},"wordCount":2728,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009","name":"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T15:11:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoop-singh-vs-state-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhoop Singh vs State on 8 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}