Dismissed

State v. Bhagwan Singh

Rajasthan HC1 May 2017CRLLA/223/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal leave to appeal, the State sought leave to challenge the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to the absence of documentary evidence proving the victim's minority and inconsistencies in her testimony.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal to the State against the acquittal of the accused respondent was rejected.

State Vs Bhagwan Singh — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 223 / 2016

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Bhagwan Singh S/o Sohan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Bholasar, P.S. Gajner, District Bikaner.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

01/05/2017

¶13

This criminal leave to appeal is filed by the State seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.97/2013 whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366(A), 376 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.

¶14

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the statements of the prosecutrix PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and from the medical report Ex-P/5 it is clear that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor however, the trial court without taking into consideration the said piece of evidence has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor. Learned

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CRLLA-223/2016]

¶17

Public Prosecutor has further argued that from the statement of the prosecutrix PW-1, it is clear that the accused respondent had abducted her and thereafter taken her to Bikaner and Suratgarh and committed sexual assault upon her, however, the trial court has illegally disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix and illegally acquitted the accused respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore submitted that it is a fit case where leave can be granted to the State to file appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶18

Per contra learned counsel for the accused respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the fact that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor. It is contended that from the medical report, it cannot be ensured that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix because as per her own statement recorded before the court, she went alone to a temple which is around 12 Kms away from her house and where she had conversation with the accused respondent for about one hour and thereafter as per her free will proceeded towards Nokha, Bikaner and Suratgarh and stayed there with him without complaining to anybody despite having opportunity.

¶20

Learned counsel for the accused respondent has therefore submitted that the trial court after pondering over the evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the accused respondent

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[CRLLA-223/2016]

¶23

from the offences, for which he was charged, as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record.

¶25

It is not in dispute that initially on 08.02.2011 a missing person report was filed by the brother of the prosecutrix Ram Niwas and after two days a complaint regarding abduction of the prosecutrix by the accused respondent was filed. Though the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded during the police investigation, has disclosed her age as 15 years but the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence to corroborate the said version of the prosecutrix.

¶26

The prosecutrix in her court statement has admitted that on 08.02.2011 at about 11 a.m. she went alone to a temple which is around 12 kms far from her house. She has further stated that at the temple accused respondent met her and she talked with him for about one hour and thereafter both of them proceeded towards Nokha where they drank tea at a hotel and thereafter proceeded to Bikaner. She has further stated that both of them went to Suratgarh and stayed there in a Dharmshala for two days. Though she has stated that at Suratgarh the accused respondent had committed rape upon her but at the same time she has also admitted that several persons met her in the Dharmshala, however, she did not complain to anybody about the incident.

¶27

The trial court was of the opinion that testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be believed and it appears that she went away

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

[CRLLA-223/2016]

¶30

with the accused respondent as per her own will.

¶31

After going through the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during the course of the trial, I am also of the opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon as she has admitted her proximity with the accused respondent prior to the day of incident and as per her own version she went with him to Nokha and thereafter to Suratgarh as per her own free will. It cannot be believed that despite she was ill-treated by the accused respondent, she did not complain to anybody either at Bikaner or Suratgarh though she had several opportunities.

¶32

The prosecution has miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence particularly the school record pertaining to the prosecutrix to prove the fact that she was minor on the date of the incident.

¶33

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case I have no hesitation in holding that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences, for which he was charged, as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

¶34

In view of the above I do not find any case for granting leave to the State to file appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶35

Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is rejected.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

Gaurav

(5 of 5)

[CRLLA-223/2016]

State v. Bhagwan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Bhagwan Singh

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 Mukhram

Ashok Kumar Vs State and Anr.

Dhanna Ram Vs State and Ors.

Dhanna Ram and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan

Sabir Khan and Anr. Vs Chenaram and Ors.

State Vs Mukesh Puri