Criminal appeal by prosecutrix challenging acquittal of respondent under IPC sections for rape and cheating. High Court upheld acquittal due to prosecutrix silence for a year, lack of resistance, refusal of medical exam, and inconsistencies in her statements.
Delay of 42 days condoned; appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.05.2016
Meena
..... Appellant
Versus
Manoj and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J.
CRM-47517-2013
Heard.
Sufficient cause has been shown for condoning delay in filing
the appeal.
The application is, accordingly, accepted. Delay of 42 days in
filing of the appeal is condoned.
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013
Being aggrieved, the prosecutrix by way of present appeal has RISHU KATARIA 2016.06.01 16:00I attest to the accuracy andchallenged the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2013, passed by the learned authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013 (O&M) -2-
Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, acquitting respondent No. 1-Manoj under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2 lacs from her out of total amount of 4 lacs demanded by him. On his asking, on 12.01.2010, she by boarding a bus from her village reached Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar turn and handed over the bio-data of her nephew to him. Respondent No. 1 took the prosecutrix in his car, on the pretext of taking receipt against submission of bio-data, in a hotel room situated at G.T. Road about 3-4 kilometres from Bahdurgarh and committed rape upon her against her wishes with a threat of dire consequences, in case, she would disclose the episode to anyone. Hence, out of fear, she did not disclose the above incident to anyone. Respondent No. 1 neither returned the aforesaid amount which he had taken from the prosecutrix on the pretext of securing job for her nephew nor secured any job as such. Consequently, she narrated the entire story to her brother-Ashok (PW-5) and on his advice, lodged FIR. The police swung into action. The prosecutrix was taken for her medico-legal examination, but she refused for the same. Respondent No. 1 was arrested and medico-legally examined. The place of occurrence was inspected and its site plan was prepared. On completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Area Magistrate.RISHU KATARIA 2016.06.01 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013 (O&M) -3-
learned counsel for both the sides, the learned trial Court did not find itself in favour of the prosecution story and resultantly, acquitted respondent No. 1 vide impugned judgment dated 26.03.2013.
(i) The prosecutrix at the time of alleged occurrence was married and aged around 36 years. According to her on 12.01.2010, she came to Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar turn by bus to hand over the bio-data of her nephew to respondent No. 1. However, on the asking of respondent No. 1 to take the receipt against submission of bio-data, she accompanied him in his car. She was taken to a hotel situated at G.T. Bahadurgarh, where she was raped against her wishes under the threat of dire consequences. Under the alleged fear, she did not disclose the incident
RISHU KATARIA 2016.06.01 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013 (O&M) -4-
to anyone for about a year. The above conduct of the prosecutrix for remaining silent for more than one year creates suspicion about the prosecution story.
(ii) On the very next day of the registration of FIR, the prosecutrix made a supplementary statement to the effect that on the fateful day respondent No. 1 had taken her away to V.C. Hotel in his Maruti Car No. HR-10-9535. He had gone to the counter of said hotel and got opened a room for taking meal. Respondent No. 1 had disclosed the prosecutrix as his wife to the person sitting on the counter and then they both took meals in room No. 104 and then respondent No. 1 committed rape upon her against her consent. From the initial complaint and supplementary statement of the prosecutrix, it emerges that respondent No. 1 took her along from a public place and dropped her back on the same place i.e. Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar turn. Respondent No. 1 himself drove the car and thus, it is evident that his both the hands were engaged in driving.
Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was not carrying any deadly weapon. The conduct of the prosecutrix of not questioning respondent No. 1 that why she was brought in a hotel proves her implied or express consent about her rape especially when she even did not protest to respondent No. 1 that why he was disclosing her as his wife to the counter manager. She calmly went upstairs
RISHU KATARIA 2016.06.01 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013 (O&M) -5-
with respondent No. 1 and took meal with him in the room without any protest or objection. All above factors clearly speak that she was a consenting party to the entire episode.
(iii) The prosecutrix made some improvements as PW-4. According to her complaint Ex. P-4, she was raped by respondent No. 1 on 12.01.2010, but as PW-4 she testified that not only on 12.01.2010, respondent No. 1 also tried to molest her on 24.05.2011 also. She was confronted with her application Ex. P-4 in this respect. As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix had handed over a sum of 2,65,000/- to respondent No. 1, contrary to the deposition of her brother PW-5 Ashok Kumar that he had handed over 2 lacs to him on 03.01.2010 at his house. Various other omissions and commissions mentioned in her application Ex. P-4 discussed in para 26 of the impugned judgment were put to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination, but she could not satisfactorily reply the same.
(iv) The prosecutrix did not raise any hue and cry or resistance at the time of her alleged rape. Even the clothes worn by her at the time of occurrence were not torn which also show that no force was used upon the prosecutrix by respondent No. 1. That apart, she had refused for her medico-legal examination, upon her production before the medical officer by the police which
RISHU KATARIA 2016.06.01 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1413-DB-2013 (O&M)
-6-
requires to draw an adverse inference against her that the
things did not happen in the manner as narrated by her.
dent in any of the above findings of the learned trial Court. Hence, finding no other option the same are to be upheld.
( T.P.S. MANN ) ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE
May 24, 2016
rishu
RISHU KATARIA 2016.06.01 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether acquittal of respondent for rape and cheating was correct given inconsistencies in prosecutrix statement and lack of resistance?
Whether appeal against acquittal should be allowed based on corroborated medical exam refusal and conflicting testimony?
Whether delay in filing appeal should be condoned and if appeal has merit?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Meena
Manoj
Another
T.P.S. Mann
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court