Criminal Leave to Appeal dismissed. The High Court refused leave to appeal against the acquittal of two accused persons. The court held that no ground was made out to interfere with the trial court's judgment as the fact of rape was not in the FIR.
Leave to appeal dismissed. Non-bailable warrants recalled and respondents set at liberty.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL No. 250 OF 2015
APPELLANT:
State of Rajasthan
VERSUS
ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS:
1.Hanumanram S/o Kacharuram, B/c Regar, resident of Jasnagar, P.S. Merta City, District Nagaur. 2.Birmaram @ Birbal S/o Rameshwar, B/c Megwal, R/o Katyasani, PS Merta City,District Nagaur.
S.B. Criminal leave to Appeal & Appeal U/s 378 (iii) & (i) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.05.2015 passed by Shri Jaiprakash narayan Purohit, RJHS, Learned special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases, Merta in Sessions case No. 01/07 (31/06) whereby he has acquitted the accused respondents for the offence punishable U/s342, 394 and 376 IPC .
Date of order : 03.11.2016
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Mr. RK Bohra, PP for the State.
O R D E R
<><><>
Appellant No. 2 is present in Court in pursuance of
the order passed by this Court on 26.09.2016.
2
In the present case, the Leave to Appeal has not been allowed so far and non-bailable warrants have been issued. In this context, it is important to first hear the public prosecutor on the application for Leave to Appeal.
It is argued by the Public Prosecutor that PW-1 prosecutrix in her statement before the Court has clearly alleged that the appellants committed rape with her. The trial court has acquitted the appellants only on the ground that the fact of commission of rape was not mentioned in FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police. It is also contended by the Public Prosecutor that the contradictions are not material and the court below has erred in acquitting the accused.
I have perused the impugned order.
The incident is stated to be of 02.10.2006 and the FIR of the same was lodged on the same day. In the FIR, the allegation of rape was not there and the police registered the FIR for offences under Sections 341, 379 and 344 of IPC. Thereafter on 06.10.2006, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the
3
Magistrate and for the first time she levelled allegation of commission of rape. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that earlier an FIR was lodged by the respondent Hanuman Ram against the husband of the prosecutrix and thereafter the allegation of rape has been levelled against the present respondent. In her FIR as well as in her statement recorded before the Police, the prosecutrix has only alleged that the respondents took away her jewellery and tried to commit rape with her but subsequently the offence of rape has been added.
PW-2 Suresh in his cross-examination has admitted that Hanuman Ram has lodged an FIR against him prior to the recording of the statement of the prosecutrix before the Magistrate. This witness admitted that in Exhibit P-5 FIR, no mention was made about commission of rape.
Prosecutrix has stated that the incident took around 45 minutes and as per her statement initially Hanuman Ram opened her clothes kept her clothes nearby and had committed inter-course with her. Thereafter, Birma Ram committed inter-course with her
4
and after commission of inter-course Birma Ram raised an alarm and the neighbours apprehended Hanuman Ram. The story as put forth by the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and the fact that the respondent No. 1 has lodged an FIR against the husband of the prosecutrix prior to recording of the statement before the Magistrate and this was the probable reason why the offence of rape was added after four days of the incident. Further considering the fact that there were no injuries on the private parts of the body, the Court below has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused.
From the above discussion no ground is made out to allow the leave to appeal, the leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The non-bailable warrants issued by this Court are recalled. The respondent who has been produced in court be set at liberty forthwith.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
Sudheer
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. should be allowed against a judgment acquitting accused of offences punishable under Section 342, 394 and 376 IPC.
State of Rajasthan
Pankaj Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
