In a rape case, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the trial court's conviction. The court found the prosecution testimony unreliable due to lack of medical corroboration, delay in FIR, and suspicious circumstances.
Appellant acquitted; trial court judgment summarily set aside.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 389/ 1993
Hemraj son of Gopal by caste Gujar, resident of Rambhandi, Tehsil Digod, District Kota. (At present in District Jail, Kota).
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through P.P.
For appellant : Mr. Rinesh Gupta
For respondent : Mr. V. S. Godara
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
02/01/2017
Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 250/1991 registered at Police Station, Kaithoon, District Kota Nagar qua commission of offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).
Prosecution story, in brief is that the petitioner had raped the prosecutrix while she was working in the fields.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. Charge was framed against the appellant qua commission of offence of punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. on 30.09.1992.
In order to prove its case prosecution examined seven witnesses during trial. Appellant when examined
(2 of 6)
under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the completion of prosecution evidence, stated that he had been falsely involved in this case. He was having a dispute with PW Ram Charan with regard to property of Kakaji . Ram Charan and the prosecutrix wanted to grab the land but he (appellant) did not want to give the land to the prosecutrix or Ram Kishan.
Appellant examined one witness in his defence.
Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 28.09.1993 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. Hence, the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. There was unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. Prosecutrix was a married lady and had falsely involved the appellant in this case at the instance of PW Ram Charan, who was a having property dispute with the appellant. Medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution version. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ali @ Guddu V. State of U.P., 2015 Criminal Law Journal, 1967 wherein it was held
as under:
“Be it noted, there can be no iota of doubt
that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable and beyond reproach, a conviction can be based. In the case at hand, the learned trial Judge as well as the High
(3 of 6)
Court have persuaded themselves away with this principle without appreciating the acceptability and reliability of the testimony of the witness. In fact, it would not be inappropriate to say that whatever the analysis in the impugned judgment, it would only indicate an impropriety of approach. The prosecutrix has deposed that she was taken from one place to the other and remained at various houses for almost two months. The only explanation given by her is that she was threatened by the accused persons. It is not in her testimony that she was confined to one place. In fact, it has been borne out from the material on record that she had travelled from place to place and she was ravished number of times. Under these circumstances, the medical evidence gains significance, for the examining doctor has categorically deposed that there are no injuries on the private parts. The delay in FIR, the nonexamination of the witnesses, the testimony of the prosecutrix, the associated circumstances and the medical evidence, leave a mark of doubt to treat the testimony of the prosecutrix as so natural and truthful to inspire confidence. It can be stated with certitude that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not of such quality which can be placed reliance upon. True it is, the grammar of law permits the testimony of a prosecutrix can be accepted without any corroboration without material particulars, for she has to be placed on a higher pedestal than an injured witness, but, a pregnant one, when a
(4 of 6)
Court, on studied scrutiny of the evidence finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix, because it is not unreproachable, there is requirement for search of such direct or circumstantial evidence which would lend assurance to her testimony. As the present case would show, her testimony does not inspire confidence, and the circumstantial evidence remotely do not lend any support to the same. In the absence of both, we are compelled to hold that the learned trial Judge has erroneously convicted the accused-appellants for the alleged offences and the High Court has fallen into error, without reappreciating the material on record, by giving the stamp of approval to the same.”
Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box has duly corroborated the prosecution story.
Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box as PW 1 desposed as per the prosecution story. She stated that she had been raped by the appellant while she was working in the fields. While she was returning home, she met PW Ram Charan and discolsed to him that she had been raped by the appellant. Prosecutrix further stated that on the day of occurrence her husband had gone to village Kaliya and had retruned after three-four days. When her husband returned home, she narrated the occurrence to him and thereafter the matter was reported to the police.
(5 of 6)
PW Ram Charan deposed that on the day of
occurrence he had met the prosecutrix while she was going home. Prosecutrix told him that she had been raped by the appellant. In his cross examination, he admitted that a property dispute was going on between his family and the appellant.
PW-5 Ram Kishan, husband of the prosecutrix deposed that on the day of occurrence he had gone to village Kaliya. He had returned home after about five days and his wife told him that she had been raped by the appellant. Thereafter, they reported the matter to the police. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the property dispute was going on between the appellant and due to this reason he was falsely involved the appellant in this case.
PW 6 Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma deposed that on 19.12.1991 he had medically examined the prosecutrix. He deposed that there were no external or internal injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. In his cross examination he deposed that he had not found any evidence of commission of offence of rape.
PW-7 Shankar deposed with regard to investigation conducted by him.
In the present case, offence of rape had allegedly been committed on 13.12.1991. However, the matter was reported to the police on 19.12.1991. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 19.12.1991. Although, prosecutrix
(6 of 6)
while appearing in the witness box had deposed that she had been raped by the appellant but her version is not corroborated by medical evidence. As per PW 6 Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, he had not found any evidence of commission of offence of rape. Since the version of the prsoecutrix is not corroborated by medical evidence, delay in lodging the FIR gains significance. As per the prosecutrix, her motherin-law, her father-in-law and her children were present in the house. Eldest daughter of the prosecutrix was aged about twenty years. Thus, prosecutrix could have reported the matter immediately to the police. So far as, PW Ram Charan is concerned, he had admitted in his cross examination that his family was having a property dispute with the appellant and a case was pending in this regard. Hence, in the facts of the present case, prosecution story is rendered doubtful.
In the facts and circumstances of the persent case, appellant is entitled for acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt.
Accordingly appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Consequently, judgment/order passed by the Trial Court dated 28.08.1993 are set aside.
(SABINA)J.
Sudha/35
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal in a rape case when the prosecutrix's testimony is not corroborated by medical evidence and there is a delay in lodging the FIR.
Whether the alleged property dispute and circumstances render the prosecution version doubtful.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant given the lack of reliable evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Ali @ Guddu V. State of U.P.Referred¶21
Md. Ali @ Guddu V. State of U.P., 2015 Criminal Law Journal, 1967
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hemraj son of Gopal
The State of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
