Lakhan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 96/2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶19

Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 of R.I. for seven years and fine of

¶20

2

¶21

		*CRA No. 326 of 2001*
the IPC	Rs. 200/- stipulations.	with default
Under Section 450 of the IPC	R.I. for five yea 100/- with defa	rs and fine of Rs. ult stipulations.
	Both the sente to run concurre	nces are directed ntly.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.04.2000 at about 1:00 PM, the complainant was present at her house when the accused unlawfully entered the house and forcibly committed rape upon her. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon.

¶23

During the investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial.

¶24

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and took the plea of false implication. He stated that during the last election, he had campaigned against one Noharlal, whereas the complainant’s husband had campaigned in favour of Noharlal and had repeatedly pressurized him to do the same. According to the accused, due to political rivalry, he has

¶25

3

¶26

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶27

been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him. However, the accused did not examine any witness in his defence.

¶28

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 27.11.2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the testimony of an interested witness without proper corroboration. Learned counsel further submits that there is hardly any medical evidence available on record to support or corroborate the version of P.W.-1 (prosecutrix). It is argued that the alleged recovery of semen stains on the clothes of the accused as well as of P.W.-1 loses its evidentiary value in view of the admitted fact that both the accused and the prosecutrix are married persons. Learned counsel also submits that the conviction of the applicant is unsustainable in law, as the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused had entered the house of P.W.-1 with her consent and not with the intention to commit rape. According to the defence, the purpose of entry was merely to collect instruments for repairing a cycle. It is further submitted that the learned trial court erred in holding that the contradictions between

¶30

4

¶31

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶32

the First Information Report and the statement of P.W.-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were minor in nature, whereas in fact such contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case. He further prays that the appeal be allowed.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶35

9. The question for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offences in question ?

¶36

P.W.-1 the complainant, deposed that she knows the accused as he belongs to her village. She stated that the incident occurred at about 2:00 PM. On that day, after taking her meal, she was sleeping in her house when the accused pushed the door and entered inside. The accused asked her to give him certain articles for repairing bicycle. She went inside her room to fetch the articles and placed the bag containing the said articles on the ground in front of the accused. As she knew the accused, she turned back after placing the bag. She further stated that at that moment, the accused suddenly caught hold of her, covered her mouth with one hand and pressed her neck with the other, due to which she could not raise any alarm. The accused forcibly pushed her against the

¶37

5

¶38

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶39

wall and tripped her with his leg, causing her to fall on the ground. She further deposed that the accused threw her on the ground, lifted her skirt and humiliated her. Thereafter, the accused climbed over her and forcibly committed rape. After committing the act, the accused assaulted her by hitting her on the chest three times with the leg of the cot. She stated that she somehow struck the accused with her hand and ran outside the house. Saliva was coming out of her mouth and she fell down on the road. She further stated that a villager namely Nohar (PW-5) came there, picked her up and took her near the fan. After regaining consciousness, she narrated the incident to the villagers. Thereafter, she went to Gumka Police Station along with Dhalsingh and Budhram, where she lodged the report.

¶40

In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the witness stated that at about 1:00 PM, the accused came to her house to collect certain articles for repairing a bicycle. When she handed over the said articles to him, the accused pushed her to the floor and forcibly committed rape upon her. She further stated that when she came out of the house crying, one Nohar Yadav arrived there and saw the accused leaving the spot. Thereafter, the victim narrated the incident to him as well as to other villagers.

¶41

P.W.-5 deposed that he knows the complainant as well as the accused, both being residents of his village. He stated that about four months prior, on 19.04.2000 at around 2:00 PM, he was working in his agricultural field when he heard cries of distress

¶42

6

¶43

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶44

coming from the house of the victim. Initially, he did not pay much attention, but on hearing the cries again after some time, he came out of his field. He further stated that he saw the victim coming out of her house wearing a petticoat and blouse, while holding a sari in her hand. She fell down near the road adjoining her house and became unconscious. Thereafter, he went towards her house and saw the accused coming out of the house of the victim. Upon being questioned as to how he had entered the house and as to why the victim was crying, the accused stated that he did not know anything and thereafter ran away. P.W.-5 further deposed that he gave water to the victim and after some time, when she regained consciousness, he enquired about the incident. At that time, the victim informed him that the accused had forcibly committed rape upon her.

¶45

In his cross-examination, P.W.-5 stated that he was working at the spot which is situated about 15 feet from the house of the victim. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused committing rape upon the victim. He admitted that the husband of the victim usually leaves for work in the morning and returns in the evening. He further denied the suggestion that the villagers had pressurised the victim to lodge a false report against the accused. P.W.-5 further stated that he had contested the Panchayat election and Devsingh had contested against him. He stated that he does not know whether the accused was campaigning for him or for Devsingh and admitted that he lost the Panchayat election.

¶46

7

¶47

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶48

Dr. Meeta Tiwari (PW-11) has stated that she examined the victim and on her examination she found ligature marks on the neck of the deceased but there were no other injury marks on the rest of the body and no injury were found in the genital area. She further stated no definite opinion regarding the alleged rape can be given without chemical examination.

¶49

A comparative reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) before the Court and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reveals material contradictions which affect the core of the prosecution case. In her deposition before the Court, P.W.-1 stated that the incident occurred at about 2:00 PM, whereas in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that the accused came to her house at about 1:00 PM. Further, before the Court, she deposed that the accused caught hold of her, pressed her neck, pushed her against the wall, tripped her, threw her on the ground, lifted her skirt, and thereafter committed rape, followed by assault with the leg of a cot. However, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no mention of pressing her neck, pushing her against the wall, tripping her, assault with the leg of the cot, or her becoming unconscious. In the Court statement, she stated that she ran outside, fell on the road, became unconscious, and was taken near a fan by P.W.-5, whereas in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she merely stated that she came out crying and that P.W.-5 saw the accused leaving the spot. The manner in which the incident allegedly occurred, the sequence of events thereafter, and the

¶50

8

¶51

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶52

conduct of the parties materially differ in both statements. These inconsistencies are not minor embellishments but are substantial contradictions which strike at the root of the prosecution case and render the testimony of the prosecutrix unsafe for reliance without independent corroboration.

¶53

Upon careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Though the conviction is primarily based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1), a close scrutiny of her evidence reveals material inconsistencies between her deposition before the Court and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly with regard to the manner of occurrence and the sequence of events. These contradictions cannot be termed as minor, as they go to the root of the prosecution case. Further, the medical evidence does not lend adequate corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix. As per the testimony of Dr. Meeta Tiwari (P.W.-11), no injuries were found on the private parts of the prosecutrix and on the body and no definite opinion regarding rape could be given in the absence of chemical examination. The alleged ligature marks on the neck, in the absence of any other corresponding injuries, do not conclusively establish forcible sexual assault. The testimony of P.W.-5, who is projected as a corroborative witness, is also not

¶54

9

¶55

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶56

free from doubt. He admittedly did not witness the incident and his evidence is only hearsay to the extent that the prosecutrix narrated the incident to him after regaining consciousness. Moreover, his admission regarding prior Panchayat election rivalry raises a possibility of bias, which necessitates cautious appreciation of his testimony. The prosecution has also failed to establish beyond doubt that the entry of the accused into the house of the prosecutrix was with the intention to commit rape, which is a mandatory requirement for sustaining conviction under Section 450 IPC.

¶57

In criminal jurisprudence, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The cumulative effect of the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix, lack of medical corroboration, and the doubtful nature of supporting evidence entitles the appellant to the benefit of doubt.

¶58

After perusing the entire evidence and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, has committed grave error and not justified in convicting the appellant as the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 376 and 450 of IPC.

¶59

The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not

¶60

10

¶61

CRA No. 326 of 2001

¶62

discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS.

¶63

Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed.

¶64