High Court of Rajasthan allowed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 53/1990 quashing conviction for rape due to reliable discrepancies in testimony, while dismissing Appeal No. 52/1990 as abated due to the appellant's death.
Impugned judgment quashed and appellants acquitted; bonds discharged. Appeal by Harvinder Singh dismissed on account of death.
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. 52/1990
Harvinder Singh @ Binder Singh
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 53/1990
Ikbal Singh And Anr.
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Nishant Bora, Amicus Curiae Mr. A.R. Godara |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit,P.P. |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 11/07/2022
Pronounced on 20/07/2022
preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 52/1990:-
“ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Appeal may kindly be accepted and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he be set at liberty.”
In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 53/1990:-
“ It is therefore respectfully prayed that the appeal of the appellants may kindly be allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar may kindly be set aside and they may be acquitted of the charge levelled against them any other appropriate order may kindly be passed in the faver of the appellants ”
1989, and the criminal appeal has been pending since the year
1990.
(2 of 7)
[CRLA-52/1990]
3.1 On such submission, the Court asked Mr. Bora himself to appear and argue this case on behalf of the appellant, as Amicus Curiae.
3.2 Accordingly, Mr. Nishant Bora, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the accusedappellant under the free legal aid scheme. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.
(3 of 7)
[CRLA-52/1990]
Court, Sri Ganganagar whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Section 376 (2) (g) and Section 366 I.P.C.; for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the appellants were awarded a sentence of 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them to further undergo 6 months R.I. and; for the offence under Section 366 IPC, they were ordered to undergo five years R.I. each, alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further 6 months R.I.
(4 of 7)
[CRLA-52/1990]
appellants must be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted from all the charges levelled against them.
(5 of 7)
[CRLA-52/1990]
16.1 It is an admitted position in the present case that the prosecutrix and her husband were in the fields to cut grass, on the day on which the incident in question occurred and that, owing to ill health, the prosecutrix stayed back; while her husband proceeded further, she remained there and laid down to rest. 16.2 The prosecutrix stated that she laid down in the field, which at the time had a crop of narma which was about 4 feet in height, amidst which she laid down.
16.3 The prosecutrix further stated that the accused herein suddenly appeared and taking turns, gang raped her. After which, her husband returned to the scene and then asked the accused persons as to why had they had gang raped her. And that, he subsequently left her there to call the other villagers.
16.4 However, a perusal of the testimony of the husband, P.W. 6 Sohanlal reveals that when he returned after cutting grass, to the location at which he had left his wife, he could not find her.
16.5 Furthermore, the prosecutrix, in her testimony, also deposed that she did not meet her husband until the next day of the incident in question, and that he had then asked her where she had been.
16.6 Additionally, the husband, when he lodged the F.I.R. against the accused herein, did not make any mention of finding at the spot, the broken bangles of his wife, whereas the same is stated in his testimony.
16.7 The prosecutrix also stated that when the incident in question occurred, and she was sexually assaulted, she was threatened to stay silent, which is why she did not wail or make
(6 of 7)
[CRLA-52/1990]
any noise, however, she also stated the exact opposite in her testimony.
16.8 The aforementioned contradictory versions of the prosecutrix and her husband also cast a serious doubt upon the case of the prosecution and points towards false implication of the accusedappellants in the present case.
16.9 There is also a delay of about 2 days in filing the F.I.R. the explanation for which, as provided by the prosecutrix in her testimony, does not seem probable.
16.10 Additionally, the testimony of P.W. 1 Dr. K.N. Markandya reveals that an opinion could not be formed as whether the offence of rape had been committed upon the prosecutrix, since there were no injuries around the genital area of the prosecutrix either. Also, there is no clinching medical evidence which points to the culpability of the accused either, there is no evidence to corroborate the version as put forth by the prosecutrix.
accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside; the said appellants are acquitted of all charges levelled against them. They are on bail, in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 24.07.1990 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 65/1990, whereby the sentenced awarded to them
(7 of 7) [CRLA-52/1990]
was suspended. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged. However, appeal No.52/1990 preferred by appellant-Harvinder Singh @ Binder Singh is dismissed, as having abated, on count of his death. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
13-suraj/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants should be acquitted of charges of rape due to contradictions in prosecutrix testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.
Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by Harvinder Singh abates due to the death of the appellant before judgment.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Harvinder Singh @ Binder Singh
Ikbal Singh
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha Singh
State
Dr. Pusphendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
