The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the State's special leave to appeal against the Additional Sessions Judge's acquittal of the accused in a rape case, finding no illegality as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Leave to appeal was denied and the special leave to appeal was dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 277 / 2016
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Gudar Das @ Dinesh S/o Ramchandra Sad, Resident of Charano Ka Bas Deveriya, Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, P.P.
For Accused-Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
17/04/2017
This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Case No. 33/2013 (113/14), whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
The brief facts of the case are that PW-1 Swaroop Ram has lodged FIR No. 140/2013 at Police Station Jaitaran against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, on 06.042013 while alleging that he is employed in Chennai and his mother and wife are residing in his house situated at village Devariya of Tehsil Jaitaran. It is further alleged that on 03.02.2013 at about 6.00 P.M., the accused respondent came to
(2 of 4)
[CRLLA-277/2016]
his house and under the pretext of removing evil from the person of his wife, has asked his mother to go in another room and thereafter has committed rape upon his wife. It is alleged that after the said incident his wife has informed him after about one and half month. It is alleged that after knowing about the incident he came to his village and after verifying the incident from his mother and wife has filed aforesaid FIR.
The police, after thorough investigation has filed chargesheet against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and the trial court has also framed charge for the aforesaid offence against the accused respondent.
During the course of trial, the prosecution has got examined as many as 15 witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. The statements of the accused respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he has also deposed in defence as DW-1.
The trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence, has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that PW3 prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that as the accused respondent has forced her to smell something, she became unconscious, however, after she gained consciousness, she found her clothes were wet and smeared and then she came to know that the accused respondent has committed rape upon her. The trial court has observed that the prosecutirx in her Court statement has stated that the accused
(3 of 4)
[CRLLA-277/2016]
respondent has committed rape upon her when she was conscious. The trial court is of the opinion that it is a significant improvement in the statement of the prosecutirx. The trial court has further observed that the prosecutrix has admitted that she received a notice for recovery of Rs. 48,000/- from the wife of the accused respondent in June, 2013. The trial court has further observed that the prosecutrix in her statements has submitted her signatures on the documents produced in defence and from the said piece of evidence, it appears that the allegation of rape has been falsely levelled against the accused respondent as his wife has served a notice upon the prosecutrix for recovery of Rs. 49,000/-.
The trial court has taken into consideration the statements of PW-4-Vidhya Devi mother-in-law of the prosecutrix which has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile and has specifically stated in her statement before the Court that she has not seen the accused respondent committing rape upon her daughter-in-law.
The trial court has also taken into consideration the first information report regarding the incident which was lodged after a delay of two months, however, the explanation offered by the complainant for lodging the FIR with a delay of two months is not satisfactory.
The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the age of the accused respondent at the time of incident was 65 years and the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was capable of sexual intercourse at the relevant
(4 of 4)
[CRLLA-277/2016]
time.
After pondering over the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence, the trial court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused respondent and after carefully scrutinizing the record particularly the statement of complainant PW-1, proseuctrix PW-3, her mother-in-law PW-4 and the documentary evidence produced in defence, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC levelled against the accused respondent.
Hence, no case for grant of leave to this appeal is made out. Accordingly, this leave to appeal is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Taruna
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 376 IPC on grounds of insufficient evidence, inconsistent statements, and delayed FIR lodgment.
State of Rajasthan
Gudar Das @ Dinesh
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
