Dismissed

State v. Dhannalal

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2017CRLA/1164/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Application for Leave to Appeal and the Criminal Appeal. The Court held that the trial court's finding that the prosecutrix voluntarily went with the accused and the relationship was consensual was justified, leading to the acquittal of the accused on rape and abduction charges.

What did the court decide?

Application for Leave to Appeal No. 360/2015 and Criminal Appeal No. 1164/2015 dismissed; record returned to trial court.

State Vs Dhannalal — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 360 / 2015

¶3

State of Rajasthan

¶4

----Appellant Versus

¶5

1.Dhannalal S/o Laxminarayan Joshi 2. Mahaveer S/o Magnaram Suthar 3. Shankarlal S/o Bherulal Gadri, All R/o Chhapri, P.S. Sadar, District Bhilwara ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1164 / 2015 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Dhannalal S/o Laxminarayan Joshi R/o Chhapri, P.S. Sadar, District Bhilwara ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain

¶6

_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶7

Judgment / Order

¶8

08/08/2017

¶9

The Application for Leave to Appeal No. 360/2015 under Section 378(iii) & (i) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 1.9.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 55/2007 whereby

¶10

(2 of 5)

¶11

the respondents Mahaveer and Shankar Lal were acquitted from charges under Sections 363, 366-A, 376/120B and 342 IPC and respondent Dhanna Lal was acquitted from charges under Section 342, 366A and 376 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 1164/2015 has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the very same judgment whereby, while convicting the accused respondent Dhanna Lal under Section 363 IPC the trial court sentenced him to the period of custody already undergone by him. In this appeal, prayer is made to enhance the sentence awarded to the accused.

¶12

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.

¶13

The star witness of the prosecution being the victim Mst. R was examined as P.W. 12 at the trial. She alleged in her evidence that the accused Dhannalal and Shankar Lal forcibly boarded her on to a motor cycle being driven by Dhannalal and was taken to Karoi and forced to board a video coach going to Ahmedabad with Dhanna Lal. From Ahmedabad, Dhanna Lal took her to Surat where she was made to stay at the house of Mahavir Suthar. There, the respondent Dhanna Lal Suthar subjected her to forcible intercourse. Mahavir suggested that she should marry Dhanna Lal. They stayed at Surat for 10-12 days. Then she was taken to Jaipur via Udaipur where she and Dhanna Lal stayed in a Dharamshala where she was again subjected to rape by Dhanna Lal. She gave out her date of birth to be 5.11.1989. The incident is said to have occurred in April, 2007 and thus in context to the

¶14

(3 of 5)

¶15

abovementioned date of birth, the victim was well above 17 years of age on the date of occurrence. She was extensively cross examined on behalf of the accused and admitted that after being

¶16

taken away by Dhanna Lal, she was made to travel through thickly populated places. During cross examination she was put a pertinent suggestion that while travelling through thickly populated areas and whilst staying at such places, she did not raise any hue and cry to which she replied in affirmative. She further admitted that the accused used to prepare food for both of them during this period. Taking note of these circumstances appearing in evidence, the trial court held that the prosecutrix had gone away with the accused Dhanna Lal of her own free will and that sexual relations established between them were consensual. In the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was got exhibited by the prosecution as Ex.P-28 she did not level any kind of allegation against Shankerlal or Mahavir and consequently, the trial court held that the prosecution could not prove the charges against these two accused and rightly so in the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, holding the carnal relations between Dhanna Lal and the prosecturix to be totally consensual the trial court acquitted the accused Dhanna Lal from the charges under Sections 342, 366A and 376 IPC.

¶17

Since the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years on the date of occurrence, the respondent Dhanna Lal was held technically guilty for the offence under Section 363 IPC and was sentenced to the period already undergone by him. I am in total

¶18

(4 of 5)

¶19

agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and find no reason to grant leave to the State of Rajasthan to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents from various charges. I am also not inclined to entertain the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 377 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent Dhanna Lal by the trial court for the offence under Section 363 IPC.

¶20

On going through the statement of the prosecutrix, it is manifest that she boarded motor cycle of the accused Dhanna Lal and both of them went to bus stand at Karoi from where they took bus going to Ahmedabad. It cannot be conceived even for a moment that a grown up girl aged 17 years could be forced to sit as pillion rider on a two wheeler against her wishes. Thus, evidently while going away with Dhanna Lal, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. She boarded the bus going to Ahmedabad with Dhanna Lal from Karoi which is a thickly populated area. Both of them went to Surat where they stayed in the house of Mahavir for 12-13 days. Therefrom, they again took a public conveyance and went to Jaipur via Udaipur. During this entire period, the prosecutrix did not raise any protest or hue and cry whatsoever. As per the Medical Report Ex.P-13 the prosecutrix appears to be habituated to sexual intercourse.

¶21

In view of these admitted facts spelt out from record, the finding recorded by the trial court regarding the relationship between respondent Dhanna Lal and the prosecutrix being

¶22

(5 of 5)

¶23

consensual is perfectly justified.

¶24

As a consequence the acquittal recorded by the trial court of the respondents Mahavir and Shankerlal from all the charges and of the accused Dhanna Lal from the charges under Section 342, 366A and 376 IPC is perfectly justified. The prosecutrix was just a few days shy of completing 18 years of age. She is a matured girl habituated to sexual relations and voluntarily went away with Dhanna Lal and stayed with him for almost 20 days without raising a murmur. Thus, the trial court was right in technically convicting Dhanna Lal for the offence under Section 363 IPC. The offence u/s. 363 IPC does not entail minimum punishment. Thus, the trial court committed no illegality in awarding sentence for the period already undergone by Dhanna Lal which appears to be a just sentence looking to the entirety of facts as available on record.

¶25

As a result of the above discussion, the Application for grant of Leave to Appeal no. 360/2015 as well as Criminal Appeal no. 1164/2015 are hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. Record be returned to the trial court.

¶26

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶27

/sushil/

State v. Dhannalal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Dhannalal

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

State Vs Malkeet Singh and Anr.

U.O.I. Vs Dinesh Chandra

State Vs Ram Kumar

Sohanlal Vs State and Ors.

Ganesh Pareek Vs State and Anr.

Marvel Tour Services Vs State and Anr.