Allowed

Bachchu Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2020CRLA/71/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal in rape case allowed. High Court acquitted appellant due to absence of corroborative medical evidence, hostile prosecution witnesses, and lack of confidence in the prosecutrix's version which identified different time of lodging report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence quashed. Appellant acquitted and set at liberty subject to bail bond.

Bachchu Singh Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUW

¶2

1. \u

¶3

S.B. ~rimin'al Appeal NO. 71/1987

¶4

Bachchu Singh son of Shri Kamal Singh, by caste Jat, resident of Village Mai Gujar, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) at present he is in District Jail, Bharatpur

¶5

----Accused Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Prosecutor
----Respondent
p"". & ,Pa - " L "2s
* ilV&3iea% b 6' .$ . 'tk+ dS --* ,
For Appella&(s) %?*%-@ : Mr. Jasvvant Singh
a. Q%F Sing h
,a%& %
For Resp@dent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agar~al,.P.P.
S: Y

¶8

BARDHAR

¶9

20/02/2020

¶10

n filed by the accused appellant under section llenging the judgment of conviction and sentenc assed by the Court of Addl. District &. Sessi purl in Sessions Case No.53/1986, whereb ed and sentenced the accused appellant for tb - a fg?k%under&ection 376 IPC to seven &&4qq j814fl years rigorous imprisonment with fine 2 of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

¶11

Facts of the case in nutshell are that victim (PWI) ! submitted a written report (Ex.PI) at'Police Station Sewar, on 16th %. + ;* *, % . ebruar 1986 at 5:00 p.m. rnenkoning therein that on ISth I "11 '8, February 1986 at about 6:30 , she was returning from Bharatpur to her village after her auty hours. Bachchu Singh s/o

¶12

¶13

Shri Kamal Singh was also coming to the village by his bicycle. Bachchu Singh got down from his bicycle and caught hold of her and forcibly fallen her on the ground and committed rape without her consent. Amar Singh (PW5), Khubi (PW2), Ratan Singh (PW3) and Kumari Kiran (PW4) came at the spot at that time and they saw the incident. On seeing these persons, the accused appellant ran away from the place of incident.

¶14

(Ex. PI), an FIR ' section !$ 8, .. . d

¶15

charge against the the aforesaid offence, who denied the sam claimed to be tried.

¶16

witnesses and exhibi statement of the accu 313 Cr.P.C. In defence witness.

¶17

e produced seven ents. Thereafter, the recorded under section appellant produced one

¶18

"ppellant argued that n 16th February 1986 --_* and no injury was fou~~~~@f2~&~~per A 3 the medical report (EX.P~). No'semen stains were found on the vaginal swab and on the vaginal smear which means that the medical evidence is negative and no other evidence is there on record to connect the accused appellant with the crime. In the instant case it has not been proved that who forwarded the sealed package to the Chemical Examiner. The messenger and the motbirs were also not examined at all. Amar Singh (PW5), Khubi Ram (PW2), Ratan 1 I Singh (PW3) and Kumari Kiran (PW4) are alleged to be the eye-

¶19

witnesses of the incident but they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The trial court erred in convicting the accused appellant as the conviction of the accused appellant is based on the testimony" of victim (PWI) and her statement has not been corroborated by 'the medical evidence at all. PW6 Dr. G.C. Kapoor has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that there was neither any injury on the private parts of the victim (PWI) nor 4.the private parts of e site plan (Ex.P4) p1a.c

¶20

tim (PWI) and PW7 g Officer have deposed contradict the place of incident. Neithe .y$@@lcec ; of the broken bansles of - .. 1- * fi52&: :ig?% the victim were' fo ent nor any other incriminating article I it is sufficient to show that the incident place at the place, as

¶21

alleged by the victim.

¶22

\ pposed the submissions ... advanced by the lea accused appellant and the trial court. r the accused appellant, .. ..

¶23

learned Public Prosec e State and carefully scanned and scrutinized the entire material made available to me including the record of the case.

¶24

Victim was examined as PWI. She deposed that when she shouted, Smt. Kiran (PW4), Amar Singh (PW5) and Khubhi Ram (PW2) came there and on seeing them the accused ran away. Smt. Kiran was examined as PW4, Khubhi Ram was examined as _r t_ t'* 1 '. s PW2, Ratan Singh was examined as PW3 and Amar Singh was

¶25

examined as PW5. All the above-named pros&cution witnesses did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.

¶26

In cross-examination v-ktim (PW'I) admitted that she is mother of two boys and one girl,. Her one boy is 15 years of age and another. is 8-9 years of age arid the girl is eldest one. She further admitte,dL that there was Panchayat Meeting in the village and she lodged the report on the next day. She further admitted

ad-infra: -

*wwlk93

n perusal of medical

report (Ex.P9) it rev

¶31

"(1) She h% changed (2) No mark of injury se body including genitalia. b taken from posterior tornix and anded over to Police Sewar for Chemical

¶32

n account of Chemical Examiner's rep~k " PL ,$ a . ZLPI %

¶33

PW6 Dr. G.C. aod-admitted that the victim (PWI)

¶34

had already changed the clothes. As per FSL report (Ex.P10), .< ,-'.;?r humanase'men was detected in exhibit no.1 (from packet marked 8 >" I, i 'A'). The prosecution has failed io establish that the semen of _if$ f:"._* ' 'I accused appellapt was found due to sexual intercourse committed > - 'i; =; ; Fa.:; ,,-, by the accused appellant.

¶35

is;^. - , -4. -* Medical .. report (Ex.P9) reveals that the victim was 35 p.* ... r 1':

¶36

years aged lady. As per prosecution case, rape was committed

¶37

when victim was returning from Bharatpur to the village in the agriculture field. The prosecution has not come with true version. . .. 9 :I 5, # Ordinarily offence of rape would .be committed at the scheduled I place and not in an open place. Neither the medical report /evidence nor other witnesses support the prosecution story. There was no physical or pathological evidence of rape. I

¶38

In defence DWI Yadram deposed that in the agriculture

¶39

From the impugn@Qjc@ent and order passed by the

¶40

icer in his opinion has specifically opined and id not find any violence marks on the body o prosecution has failed to i produce the medical ~f the accused appellant on record.

¶41

1n a "case ble Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad @ Sadw tate of Bihar, Criminal 3 Appeal No.264 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3780/2018), decided on ~ebruar-y 14, 2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para nos. 5 and 6 observed ad-infra:+* '. t 'L - t

¶42

"5. We have heard the learned copsel for the respective parties at length.

¶43

5.1 We have considered in detail the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court as well as that of the learned trial Court convicting the accused.

¶44

We have also considered in detail the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary.

¶45

5.2 F~om the impugned judgment!! and orders passed by both the courts below, it appears that the appellant has been convicted solely relying upon the deposition of the prosecutrix (P W5). Neither any independent witness nor even the medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution. From the deposition of PWI, it has come on record that there was

¶46

had ladmitte (accused). The prosecu &$. tpedicgl examination . - by ~r.,*~enu S

¶47

%nd PW7 - Dr. Renu

¶48

victim. She h . ,

¶49

be ruled out - t

¶50

as RBC and WBC - Medical Officer in ed and stated that on the body of the stated that there is no of rape. It is true that possibility of rape cannot examination- in-chie f). , she has stated that I evidence of rape.

¶51

blood group on the petticoat ~~&@~~etticoat are stated to be inconclusive^ jhere fore, thk only evidence available on record would be the ,deposition of the prosecutrix. It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evideg'ce must be rellable ,'and trustworthy. Therefore, now let us examine the. .e~jidence of the prosecutrix and consider whether in the ?facts and circumstances of the case is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the " * 8.; deposition of the prosecutrix; more particularly when i neither *. . . rr the medical report/evidence supports nor other

¶52

witnesses support and it has come on record that there was an enmity between both the parties.

¶53

.' 5.4 Before considering r the evidence of the prosecutrix, the decisions of this Court z ,in the cases of Raju (supra) and Rai Sandeep @ Deepu, relied upon by he learned Advocate appearing on behalf of ; ,the appellant-accused, are required to be referred to and considered.

¶54

5.4.1 In the case of Raju (supra), it is observed and held

¶55

&stress and the;' sdme time *, - of rape can .cacisef equal dis and damage'. +to '<the accused as well. The $3 accused-mu

¶56

rrp. pkcused are involved. brne in mind that the * &@an injured witness was e when the incident prese arily such a witness %go the actual assailants, btion or any basis for 51"& ent of such a witness %% thout any embellishment

¶57

¶58

12. Reference has .,A ,been made in Gurmit Singh case [(I 996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 3161 to the amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the Penal Code making the penal provisions relating to rape. more stringent, and also to Section 11 4-A of the Evidence Act with respect to a p~esumption to be raised with regard to allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape. It is however significant

¶59

¶60

that Sections 113.-A and 113-8 too were inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and dowry death have been raised against the accused. These two sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour.$ of the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape is visualised as the presumption under Section 114-A is

¶61

rape are cpncerned, C prosecutrix must be examined F I injured witness whose .: I probable bu&4w%n never be presumed that her %.4&$w %,A!! & exception, be taken nally, her statement on the principle that ess would tell a lie or ly. We believe that it is es that this case, and need to be examined." alias Deepu (supra), ider who can be said paragraph 22, it is

¶62

5.4.2 In this Cour to be a observed and

¶63

"22 In our &sidered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness, should be in a position to accept it for its :face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a

¶64

[CRLA-71/1987] *

¶65

(9 'of 1,l)

¶66

witness. What wohd be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial 8. statement and - ultimately -, before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness.. The witness should be in a

¶67

the seque Such a version should have 1" ..^ @;&j&@Bkce4nd z. b c ,a* every one of other the recoveries ed, the manner of scientific .,. . evidence and e said version should ith the version of every I. even be stated that it plied in the case of ere there should not the chain of ccused guilty of the Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all ?&e; such similar tests to be F applied, can it be held that such a witness can ?%. pbe called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any " corroboration qa-nd ' based on which the guilty : :; ': can be punished: 'To be more precise, the 1 ..' I - version of the , ':&id " witness on the core $* spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, 6 .f

'(i0 of 11)

[CRLA-71/1987]

oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable'the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged. "

¶72

¶73

5.4.3 In the case of K~ishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC .130, it is observed and held by

¶74

sterling quality. <

¶75

Whether the prosecutrix inspires confidence a bsolutely trustworthy, unblemished

¶76

place on 15.02.19 Investi ittkd that the report was * . '<8s2+$* lodged on- 16.02.1986~~~%6~~#. is a variation in the version of victim (PWI) about the time of giving the complaint. The medical report does not support the case of kh,e prosecution. FSL report (Ex.PI0) also does not support the case of prosecution as no medical examination report of the accused appellant produced by the prosecution on record. In view of above, -7 .I statement of victim (PW-1) dqes not inspire confidence. In 1(' 2' -, absence of any other supporting evidence, the version of the

¶77

cll d;f 11)

¶78

[CRLA-71/1987]

¶79

victim does not appear to be absolutely trustworthy and unblemished. Thus, there is no scope to sustain the convicfion and sentence imposed on the appellanPand'accused is to be given the benefit of doubt.

¶80

In view of above and fo'r the reasons stated above, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and'oider of conviction and sentence passdd by the trial court is hereby

¶81

437A Cr.P.C., the accus to forthwith furnish a personal bond in nd a surety bond in the like amount, be shall be effective for a period of six months n the event of filing of Special Leave Petition a t or for grant of leave, the appellant on receipt f, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Cou

¶82

ned forthwith.

¶83

ERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶84

NARENDRA KR SHARMA 138412

Bachchu Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachchu Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himmat Vs State

Ganesh Prajapat S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivraj S/O Ramavtar B/C Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan

Nand Lal S/O Chotu Lal Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxminarayan S/O Shri Kasera Ram B/C Berwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Singh S/O Keshuram Vs State of Rajasthan