In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court upheld the conviction failure. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in evidence regarding the FIR delay and injuries, as per the double presumption principle.
Criminal appeal dismissed and judgment of acquittal of the Sessions Court upheld.
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. Criminal Appeal No. 460/1989
State
----Appellant
Versus
Buta Singh And Ors.
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Vikram Sharma,P.P. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Ms. Anjali Kaushik |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 11/07/2022 Pronounced on 20/07/2022
“ It is, therefore, prayed that the leave to appeal in the present matter may kindly be granted and the appeal may kindly be accepted and entertained. It is further prayed that the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar dated 2.8.1989 may kindly be set aside and the accused persons may kindly be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law and appropriate sentences may kindly be awarded.”
(2 of 7)
[CRLA-460/1989]
(3 of 7)
[CRLA-460/1989]
possible to produce any independent witness to corroborate the version of the victim.
5.1 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the testimony of the victim clearly reveals that while she was sleeping in the courtyard ( aangan ) of the her house, along with her elder sister, mother and father, and that, she suddenly awoke to find the rope which was used to tie their buffalo/bull had came loose, which when she had then gone to fasten, the respondents, Buta Singh, Darshan Singh, Manga Singh @ Bhaag Singh kidnapped her and took her to and that, Buta Singh beat her and forced himself upon her after which each of the respondents forced themselves upon her, twice over, due to which she bled from her private parts, and her clothes were also blood stained.
After which, the respondents threatened her, to not make any disclosure of what had transpired, and that Buta Singh forced her to wash her blood stained salwar , telling her that if her family found out she would be beaten. After which they left her at Kanak. It was further deposed by her that the next day the respondents picked her up from Kanak and dropped her back to her home.
(4 of 7)
[CRLA-460/1989]
got the victim medically examined. That her clothes were taken into custody and examined per the due procedure established by law. And that, there are 8 injuries on the person of the victim. Furthermore, the radiologist’s report reveals that the victim is aged about 17 years, a minor. And that, P.W. 8 Dr. Darbir Singh deposed that the vicitm was aged about 16 years of age.
(5 of 7)
[CRLA-460/1989]
15.2 The injuries on the person of the victim, as per the medical report, at Ex. P/2, generated by Dr. P.L. Mathur and Dr. Jyotsna Ojha, state that the injuries appear to be 8-20 days old from the date of medical examination.
15.3 The victim states that she awoke at about 1 a.m. on the night of the incident in question, and saw that the rope which was used to tie their bull/buffalo had come loose, and that when she went to fasten the same, the respondents kidnapped her and took her away. This likelihood of the same that just when the victim happened to awaken, and then happened to notice the rope with which the bovine was tied was loose, and that at the very moment the respondents were waiting in the lurch and then kidnapped her and subsequently raped her, seems highly unlikely, and is not sufficiently corroborated with support of other evidences.
15.4 P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution.
15.5 Neither the P.W. 6 Ramsingh, the Investigating Officer, nor the victim have mentioned in their statements deposed in their
(6 of 7)
[CRLA-460/1989]
testimonies anything regarding Bikaner, whereas it is the version of the prosecution that the medical examination to verify the age of the victim was conducted in a facility in Bikaner. This further casts a shadow of doubt on the version of the prosecution. Whereas the medical examination that was conducted in Sri Ganganagar reveals that the age of the victim may be between 17-19 years at the time of the incident, whereas in the F.I.R. it is averred that the victim was about 14 years.
15.6 Furthemore, the testimony of Dr. S.C. Bharadwaj, P.W. 7 in his testimony states that no opinion could be given with respect to recent sexual activity of the victim.
15.7 Lastly, the testimony of Chindo @ Chindra Pal, the neighbour of the victim, states that she went with one Roshan, and upon her return, came back with 2 new sets of clothes, a radio and Rs. 250/- cash.
Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“1.An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
2. The Cr.P.C. puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
3. Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an
(7 of 7)
[CRLA-460/1989]
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
4. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the Accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. ”
by the learned Court below is upheld, and consequently, the present criminal appeal fails.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
9-Skant/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Court erred in acquitting the respondents of charges for rape and abduction of a minor.
Whether the evidence on record establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶48
(2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State
Buta Singh
Manga Singh
Darshan Singh
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
