Allowed

Ram Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022CRLA/1310/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1986 challenging a conviction for abduction and rape, the High Court analyzed the delay in lodging an FIR, the victim's age, and conflicting medical evidence which indicated habitual intercourse. The court found the prosecution unable to prove flagellation or resistance and allowed the appeal, acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order dated 21.04.1986 setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1310 of 1986 Appellant :- Ram Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Shankar Audichya Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

1. The present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant- Ram Singh against the judgement and order dated 21.04.1986 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 175 of 1985 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Singh) convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 363 I.P.C. to 05 years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 366 I.P.C. to 07 years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 376 I.P.C. to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

¶6

2. The name of the prosecutrix is not being disclosed and mentioned in the present judgement in the light of directions of the Apex Court in various judgements and Section 228 A of the Indian Penal Code. She is, thus, referred to as ‘X’ in the judgement.

¶7

3. The prosecution case as per an application dated 26.01.1985 given by Vishram to the police of which Om Prakash Sharma is the scribe is that on 18.01.1985 he had gone to Shahjahanpur and his sister / victim ‘X’ aged about 15 years and his mother were at home. On 21.01.1985 at about 2 p.m. Ram Singh son of Ajuddhi Kurami came to his house and enticed away his sister by alluring her. They were seen by Jageshewar and Beche Lal going away. When he came back his mother told him about it. He searched her a lot but could not trace her. His report be lodged.

¶8

4. On the basis of the said application, a first information report was lodged on 26.01.1985 at about 11.30 a.m. against Ram Singh as Case Crime No. 24 of 1985, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station

¶9

¶10

Tirwa, District Farrukhabad. The chik first information report is Exb: Ka2 to the records.

¶11

5. The victim ‘X’ and the accused-appellant were apprehended on 01.02.1985 and a recovery memo was prepared. The same is Exb: Ka-5 to the records.

¶12

6. The victim ‘X’ was medically examined by Dr. Rukmini Jagtyani on 01.02.1985 at 2.30 p.m. who was brought by constable police. On physical examination the doctor noted as follows:-

¶13

“No marks of violence anywhere over body. Breast well developed.

¶14

Pubic & axillary hair well developed.”

¶15

On local examination the doctor noted as follows:-

¶16

“Hymen torn, old healed tears present. No fresh tear, no bleeding pv at present, vaginal admits two fingers easily.”

¶17

The opinion of the doctor was that she was referred for X-Ray examination and the vaginal smear was sent for examination of spermatozoa.

¶18

The said medical examination report is Exb: Ka-9 to the records.

¶19

7. A supplementary report was prepared by the doctor on 04.02.1985 in which her final opinion was as follows:-

¶20

“1. Her age is about 17 years.

¶21

She is habituated to intercourse.”

¶22

The said report is Exb: Ka-10 to the records.

¶23

8. The X-Ray examination of the victim ‘X’ was done of which a report No. 73 dated 02.02.1985 was prepared by Dr. K.K. Jagtyani. The same is Exb: Ka-11 to the records.

¶24

9. The investigation concluded and a charge-sheet No. 27 dated 06.02.1985 was filed against the accused-appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. The same is Exb: Ka-8 to the records.

¶25

¶26

10. Vide order dated 04.09.1985 passed by V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad charge under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶27

11. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witness being Vishram as P.W.-1, Smt. Jalsi as P.W.-2, Head Constable Sultan Singh P.W.-3, the victim ‘X’ P.W.-4, S.I. J.N. Tiwari P.W.-5, Dr. Rukmini Jagtyani P.W.-6 and Dr. K.K. Jagtyani P.W.-7.

¶28

12. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated of being falsely implicated in the present case because of some money which was due on the first informant Vishram and on demanding the same, he states to have been falsely implicated in the present case. No defence evidence was led.

¶29

13. Heard Sri Jai Shankar Audichya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶30

14. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the victim ‘X’ went away from her house on 21.01.1985 and was recovered on 01.02.1985. She travelled with the accused-appellant and stayed in a dharmashala which was a public place, she did not raise any resistance regarding the same. The first information report of the present case has been lodged after 05 days of the going of the victim from the house, it has been lodged on 26.01.1985. There is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging of the first information report. It is argued that the victim is a major girl. Although in the first information report her age has been stated to be 15 years but the doctor in the supplementary medical examination report has opined her age to be 17 years and as such since the incident is of the year 1985, the age as per Section 375 of I.P.C. (unamended) was 16 years and as such she was a major. It is further argued that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution story. The victim has been

¶31

¶32

opined to be habitual to intercourse. It is argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of the first informant and the victim ‘X’. It is further argued that the victim ‘X’ was seen being taken away by the accused-appellant by Jageshewar and Beche Lal but the said two persons have not been produced before the trial court and as such that part of the prosecution story is false. The present case is a case of false implication. The accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶33

15. Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and argued that the appellant is named in the first information report as the person who had enticed away the victim ‘X’. It is argued that the medical evidence is not relevant in the present case as the medical examination was conducted after about 10 days of the victim ‘X’ being enticed away. It is argued that the victim ‘X’ has named the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has levelled allegations against him. There is no credible evidence which has been produced by the accused-appellant to show any convincing reason for his false implication. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

16. Vishram P.W.-1 is the first informant and brother of the victim ‘X’. He reiterates his version as given in the first information report. He proves the application given for lodging of the first information report.

¶35

In his cross-examination, he states that he came back to the house after 3- 4 days of the incident. He had gone to the house of his cousin in Shahjahanpur. When he returned back then his mother had told him about his sister being enticed away. His mother had told him about it but no one else told him. He did not talk to anyone before lodging of the report. After he returned back he searched for her for 2-3 days and then lodged the report. His sister is not educated. She is with him. He got the report scribed by Om Prakash and then went to the police station to lodge it. He is a farmer. None of his sisters are married. He has three sisters. They live

¶36

¶37

with his mother. The accused Ram Singh did not use to come to his village. He denies to a suggestion that the accused used to come to his house since one year before. He did not meet his sister in front of him. He denies to a suggestion that before the incident he and Ram Singh used to drink liquor in his house. Ram Singh had asked his mother to marry his sister with him. His mother was ready for the marriage but he was not ready for it. He had gone to Shahjahanpur to see a boy for the marriage. The marriage was settled in the village Dhaka in Shahjahanpur with Sone Lal. Sone Lal was aged about 20-22 years. To a suggestion that Sone Lal is aged about 50 years, he denies. He states that his sister is not married to Sone Lal. He denies to a suggestion that he has sold his sister to Sone Lal for Rs. 5000/-. He further denies the suggestion that as her marriage was fixed with an old man she had run away. He further denies the suggestion that his sister is of a loose character. He states that the Investigating Officer interrogated him. He states that he did not give any statement to the Investigating Officer that his sister is of a bad character and if the same is written, he does not know as to how it is written. He denies the suggestion that he wanted to marry his sister with Sone Lal and as such she ran away from the house.

¶38

17. Smt. Jalsi P.W.-2 is the mother of the victim ‘X’. She states that Ram Singh had enticed away her daughter at about 2 p.m. He had asked her many times to marry victim ‘X’ but she had refused the marriage with him. She states that Ram Singh used to come to the house from before. She was present in the house at the day of occurrence. Ram Singh had come to the house. He was talking to her daughter at the door steps and then took her away. She was cooking food. She immediately shouted on which Jageshwar and Beche Lal came running and told her that Ram Singh has enticed away the victim ‘X’. She searched for the victim ‘X’ but could not trace her. Vishram her son was not in the house. He came on the third day and then she told him about the incident. He then also

¶39

¶40

searched the victim ‘X’ but could not trace her and then he lodged a report. Ram Singh used to come to the house of Virendra Kurmi in the village and to her house also. The house of Virendra Kurmi is in front of her house. The doors are in front of each other. Ram Singh used to call her bhabhi . She knew him from before. Her daughter was recovered after 1516 days by the police.

¶41

In her cross-examination, she states that Ram Singh used to visit her house. He used to come even in front of her son Vishram. She states that Vishram is aged above 20 years and victim ‘X’ is younger to him by about 2-3 years. The victim ‘X’ is not married. Ram Singh used to get meat which used to be cooked in her house. 3-4 days before the occurrence meat and liquor was brought in the house by her son. She does not know as to who all had taken liquor and who all ate meat. To a suggestion that Ram Singh used to give clothes to her daughter, she denies. She states that Ram Singh wanted to marry her daughter but her son was not ready for it. Once in the absence of her son, he had stated about getting married with her daughter on which she told that she would ask her son and then give a reply. When her son had gone to Shahjahanpur then Ram Singh had asked for the marriage. After refusal by her Ram Singh came and enticed away her daughter. She was not ready for the marriage. She states that her son had come back on the same day when her daughter was enticed away. Her daughter was also not ready to marry Ram Singh. When Jageshwar and Beche Lal had come till that time they had gone 2-3 fields ahead. They had seen taking away her daughter. She states that Ram Singh was carrying a country-made pistol at that time. She states that she does not remember as to when her daughter came back. She denies the suggestion that her daughter was of a bad character and had eloped. She further denies the suggestion that on the information of persons of the village she came to know of the incident.

¶42

¶43

18. Head Constable Sultan Singh P.W.-3 transcribed the chik first information report and the corresponding GD. The same are marked as Exb: Ka-2 & Ka-3 respectively to the records.

¶44

19. The victim ‘X’ was examined as P.W.-4. She states that she knows Ram Singh. He lives in the adjacent village. He met her at the shop of Virendra Katiyar and he offered her sweets which she refused. He then one day came to her house and stayed there overnight and in the night had come to her and teased her. She had objected to it and told him that she will tell it to her mother on which he said that she should not tell it to her mother and he will giver her a good dhoti . She states that on the day of occurrence Ram Singh came to her house, her mother was cooking food. She was sitting in the house. He told her to accompany him. She refused. He told her that he would get her good clothes and further that her brother is getting her married to a 60 year old person. He told her to elope with him and then marry him. He then caught hold of her and started moving. He took her to Fatehgarh and they stayed at the station where he tried to do wrongful act but she refused. He then took her from station to Hardoi. They stayed in a dharamshala . He raped her in the dharamshala . She used to stop him but he did not stop. She used to tell him to return back. On the way in between Alinagar and Kulia she met a police officer and told him about it and then they were apprehended. She then told him of the entire incident. She was medically examined and her X-Ray was done. Her brother and the police took her away.

¶45

She was cross-examined with regard to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she states that she had given her statement that Ram Singh had forcibly taken away her by catching-hold and threatening her with a country-made pistol. She had also stated that she had raised a shout, if the said things are not written in her statement then she cannot tell the reason for it. She states that since Ram Singh had threatened her she had told in court that she had gone with consent with him. She further

¶46

¶47

states that she had stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Ram Singh had called for meat and liquor after which her brother ate meat and drank liquor. She did not state in her statement that she did not stop Ram Singh from doing wrong act on her and if the same is written in her statement then she cannot state of its reason.

¶48

20. S.I. J.N. Tiwari P.W.-5 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He proves the said site plan which is Exb: Ka-4 to the records. He did the investigation of the matter. He further proves the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was marked as Exb: Ka-7 to the records and also his report for recording of the said statement which is Exb: Ka-6 to the records. He filed a charge-sheet against the accusedappellant which is Exb: Ka-8 to the records.

¶49

21. Dr. Rukmini Jagtyani P.W.-6 conducted the medical examination of the victim ‘X’. The details of the medical examination examination report have been stated above. 22. Dr. K.K. Jagtyani P.W.-7 is the radiologist who proves the X-Ray report of the victim ‘X’. The details of it have been stated above. 23. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the victim ‘X’ was major at the time of the incident as per the opinion of the doctor in the supplementary medical report. She is stated to have been taken away on 21.01.1985 after which she along with accused-appellant were apprehended on 01.02.1985 which is after about 10 days. The present first information report has been lodged on 26.01.1985 which is after about 05 days of her being taken away. The delay in lodging of the first information report is not explained. Prior to the lodging of the first information report, there is no report / application / complaint given to police or any authority with regard to taking away of the victim ‘X’. In the first information report, statement of Vishram P.W.-1 and Smt. Jalsi P.W.-2 it is stated that the victim ‘X’ was seen by Jageshwar and Beche Lal being taken away. The said two persons

¶50

¶51

have not been produced before the trial court by the prosecution. From the statements of the witnesses it is apparent that the accused-appellant was a regular visitor to the house of the first informant. He even use to get meat and liquor for consumption in the house. Meat used to be cooked there. There was some discussion between the accused-appellant and the family of the first informant with regards to marriage of the appellant with the victim ‘X’ but it is stated by the witnesses that marriage was refused by them. The victim went with the appellant to the railway station and stayed there and then to a dharmshala and stayed there. She did not raise any alarm or resistance about anything. The said two places are public places. There was ample opportunity to her to raise her grievance if she wanted. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been proved by the Investigating Officer. She was cross-examined at length for it. In the said statement she had stated that she did not object to any act of the accused-appellant. He had allured her of getting new clothes to which she had agreed. The medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case. The accused-appellant is thus entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶52

24. Thus extending the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant, he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

¶53

25. The judgement and order dated 21.04.1986 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad is hereby set-aside. 26. The appeal is allowed .

¶54

27. A copy of this judgement along with the lower court records be sent to the court below forthwith for communication and necessary action.

¶55

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 AS Rathore

¶56

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶57

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.09.29 10:48:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Surya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ayush Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Kumar Sharma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation,Anti Corruption Branch

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kallua Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others