Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rinku @ Rajesh Kumar Verma vs The State Of M.P. Judgement Given By: ... on 7 May, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.
Criminal Appeal No.1893/1997
Rinku @ Rajesh Kumar Verma
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.S.Singh and Shri Shivam Singh, counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on the 7th day of May, 2014) Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 8.9.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.112/1995, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 376 (1), 363/366, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced with 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. Default sentenced was also directed.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 19.9.1994, the prosecutrix (P.W.3) was present in her house, situated at West Land Khamariya, Jabalpur. At about 7
-:- 2 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 p.m. one Vijay Choudhary came to the house of the prosecutrix and told her mother that tutor of the prosecutrix was calling her. The prosecutrix informed that tutor would not come for teaching on that day. However, Vijay Choudhary again told that tutor was present and calling her for tuition. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went with Vijay Choudhary at about 7.10 p.m. by a separate bicycle. In House No.55 of West Land, Khamariya, there was an arrangement of tuition. When the prosecutrix went to the tuition's place, she found that tutor was not present then, she shouted upon the accused Vijay Choudhary. Thereafter, she went back to her house at 7.30 p.m. When she was on her way, near the park, the appellant Rajesh Verma held her bicycle and took her in the park. He tried to kiss her in a forceful manner. At that time, Sangeeta Verma came to the spot and she tried to take her to the house of the appellant and thereafter, the appellant Rajesh Verma shown a knife to her and ultimately she was taken by Rajesh Verma and Sangeeta Verma to their house. In front of their house, their parents were found sitting. They told to confine the prosecutrix inside the house and therefore, she was confined. After sometime Sangeeta Verma had shown some obscene photographs to her and thereafter, the appellant Rajesh Verma committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix
-:- 3 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 heard the sound of her father, who was asking from father of the appellant Rajesh about her presence. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was forced to write some letters and due to fear of the appellant Rajesh, she wrote such letters. In the late night, the accused persons relieved her from the house and she found that her parents were standing with the police. The appellant Rajesh gave a letter to her 15 days prior to the incident and she had shown that letter to her father and therefore, the appellant Rajesh and his family members were annoyed with the prosecutrix. After recovery of the prosecutrix, SHO, Police Station Khamariya had registered a case. The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination. Dr.(Smt.) Shama Choudhary (P.W.7) examined the prosecutrix and gave her report, Ex.P/8. She found that the prosecutrix was only 14 years old girl, who did not sustain any injury either external or internal. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.
3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter. He has filed some love letters given by the prosecutrix. However, no defence evidence was adduced.
-:- 4 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997
4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution's evidence, acquitted the accused Santosh Kumar Verma, Smt.Vijyalaxmi Verma and Sangeeta Verma but, convicted and sentenced the appellant Rinku @ Rajesh Verma as mentioned above.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. For consideration of such matters, age of the prosecutrix should be assessed. The prosecutrix (P.W.3) and her mother Smt.Sandhya Pandey (P.W.1) has stated that the prosecutrix was only 14 years old at the time of incident. A mark-sheet, Ex.P/5 of Central School was also produced to show that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 17.4.1980, whereas the incident took place on 19.9.1994. Dr. (Smt.) Shama Choudhary (P.W.7) examined the prosecutrix and found that secondary sex characters of the prosecutrix were under development and she was 14 years old girl. In the cross-examination of this witness Dr. (Smt.) Shama Choudhary, nothing could be brought against her assessment about the age of the prosecutrix and therefore, looking to the educational record as well as the medical evidence, the prosecutrix was approximately 14 years old at the time of incident.
7. The prosecutrix has stated that she was taken by the appellant forcefully when she was coming back to her
-:- 5 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 house. He tried to take her in the park but, she did not went inside the park and thereafter, he took her with help of her sister Sangeeta to his house, where he committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Smt. Sandhya Pandey (P.W.1) and Ravikant Pandey (P.W.2) have stated that soon after the recovery of the prosecutrix, she told that story to them. However, that story appears to be prepared afterwards. In case diary statement of the prosecutrix, Ex.D/5, she had stated to the police that her rape was committed in the garden, whereas she turned her version in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and also before the trial Court. The incident took place on 20.9.1994. Her case diary statement Ex.D/5 was recorded on the same very day, whereas her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.10.1994 i.e. approximately after four weeks of the incident. When the prosecutrix changed her version from her previous statement to her subsequent statement then, there may be two possibilities. Firstly, that the police had not recorded her correct statement and secondly, that she wanted to change her version drastically. In the present case, it was not the allegation of the prosecutrix that her statement was not recorded by the police in complete manner.
-:- 6 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997
8. If the police would have supported the accused persons and her statements would not have been recorded in an appropriate manner then, certainly the allegation of rape would not have been mentioned in her case diary statement, Ex.D/5. If the police would have supported the accused persons then, no allegation of rape would have been mentioned in the case diary statement of the prosecutrix and if police was not interested to support the accused persons then, there was no difference to the investigation officer if the prosecutrix has told that rape was committed in the room and he would have written that rape was committed in the park. Under such circumstances, the conduct of the prosecutrix is also to be considered.
9. The prosecutrix has stated that she was directed to write down some letters by the appellant and his family members. The prosecutrix as well as her mother accepted that the documents Ex.D/2 to Ex.D/11 were in the hand-
writing of the prosecutrix. Initially, the prosecution's case was that the appellant wrote a love letter to the prosecutrix and she had shown that letter to her father, so her father shouted upon her and thereafter, she was kidnapped by the appellant and rape was committed upon her. In the case diary statement of the prosecutrix, Ex.D/5 she did not mention about such letters, whereas she had alleged in her
-:- 7 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she was forced to write down such letters. If the document Ex.D/2 to Ex.D/11 are perused then, it would be apparent that such documents were not written at the same time or the same day. The texture of paper, folds of paper, writing, colour of ink and so many things visible in those documents clearly indicate that such letters were not written by the prosecutrix on the same day of the incident due to force exerted by the appellant and his family members. It appears that since the parents of the prosecutrix knew that the prosecutrix had also written some letters to the appellant and such letters were shown to the police by the appellant and his family members then, a second version was created by the parents of the prosecutrix, so that creation of letters may be explained by the prosecutrix and the story of rape could be alleged at the room of the appellant.
10. By perusal of the letters Ex.D/2 to Ex.D/11, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix was also in love affair with the appellant and she had written so many love letters to the appellant and when she could not reach to her house in the given time and thereafter, she was recovered by the police then, she had no option except to allege against the appellant that he took her forcefully and committed rape upon her. When the father of the prosecutrix had realized
-:- 8 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 that such rape could not be done in broad day light at an open place like park, therefore, the entire version of the prosecutrix was changed. She took a somersault.
11. According to the case diary statement, the alleged rape was committed at park. Case diary statement is not a substantial piece of evidence. It can be used only for contradictions and omissions and therefore, when the prosecutrix did not continue with the same story, with help of case diary statement, it cannot be said that any rape was committed upon her in the park and therefore, story of rape committed in the park appears to be not proved. The prosecutrix had alleged that the appellant committed rape upon her at his room but, she did not tell such a story soon after her recovery and therefore, the present story is nothing but, an after thought version of the prosecutrix which was given to the police after four weeks of the incident. Also, Dr. (Smt.) Shama Choudhary (P.W.7) who examined the prosecutrix and gave her report, Ex.P/8, in which she found that hymen of the prosecutrix was intact and her vagina was so tight, so that a small finger could be inserted in her vagina with difficulty. It is not the case, in which there is only allegation against the appellant about penetration. The prosecutrix had alleged about complete intercourse and in FSL report, Ex.P/16, semen particles were found in the
-:- 9 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. If the intercourse was committed even with the consent of the prosecutrix then, looking to the position of her vagina, it was not possible that such intercourse would have committed without making any harm to the private part of the prosecutrix. At least some tenderness or swelling must have been found on her private part. Dr.(Smt.) Shama Choudhary did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Even her hymen was found intact.
12. It is the settled view of Hon'ble the Apex Court that there is no need of corroboration from the side of medical evidence to believe the prosecutrix but, if the necessary medical evidence is not available and the medico legal examination negativates the allegation of the prosecutrix then, such evidence can be taken into consideration.
13. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, when the prosecutrix changed her version that rape was not committed with her in the park but, it was committed in the room, her deviation from her original allegation indicates that she alleged about the rape in the room against the appellant in an after thought manner. Allegation is contradicted by the medical evidence and therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be believed that the
-:- 10 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 appellant committed any rape or intercourse upon her. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant committed any rape upon the prosecutrix. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
14. So far as offence under Section 363, 366 of IPC is concerned, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix alleged about her kidnapping forcefully by Sangeeta and the appellant. However, looking to the variation of the prosecutrix from her original statement, the trial Court found that the accused Sangeeta was not liable for any offence and therefore, theory that she was taken forcefully could not be accepted. Initially a story was cooked that she went to get the tuition of Shri K.P.Tripathi due to instigation of one Vijay Choudhary but, thereafter, such fact was not connected with the crime. The prosecutrix had stated that fact before the trial court to create an excuse. On that particular day, there was no possibility of appearance of her tutor and therefore, there was no need to the prosecutrix to go for tuition. She did not say that Vijay Choudhary took the prosecutrix by misrepresentation and handed over her to the appellant. Hence, it appears that the prosecutrix went from her house with the pretext that she was going for
-:- 11 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 tuition. Smt. Sandhya Pandey (P.W.1) has also stated that the prosecutrix went for her tuition and she did not come back. The prosecutrix has stated that she was not going for tuition but, it was Vijay who misrepresented that the tutor would arrive on that day for the purpose of tuition. Looking to the version of the prosecutrix, it appears that she knew that tutor would not come on that particular day for tuition and still she went from her house after giving a reason to her mother that she was going for tuition. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix gave a wrong pretext to her mother and went to the appellant's house, whereas she knew that on that particular day, there was no possibility that tutor would come for tuition. Under such circumstances, the remaining story of the prosecution cannot be believed that she was taken forcefully.
15. Hence, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix went from her house on her own to the house of the appellant. There is no evidence to corroborate that the appellant met her near the park and he took the prosecutrix forcefully with help of Sangeeta. When the co-accused Sangeeta was acquitted because the version of the prosecutrix was not accepted by the trial Court then, the story of the prosecutrix is not believable against the
-:- 12 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 appellant. Alone the appellant could not take the prosecutrix forcefully from a public place, whereas the prosecutrix herself was riding a bicycle. If she was taken forcefully then, her bicycle must be found near the park after the incident. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be believed that she was forcefully taken by the appellant from the park. On the contrary, it appears that the prosecutrix herself went to the house of the appellant. Her conduct is visible from various love letters Ex.D/2 to Ex.D/11 written by her to the appellant. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC.
16. Initially, it was alleged by the prosecutrix that she went to the place of tuition due to wrong information given by one Vijay and when she was coming back, she was held by the appellant and rape was committed upon her in the park and thereafter, she was taken to the house of the appellant. Again she turned her version that rape was committed in the house of the appellant and her father and mother came to the house of the appellant to enquire about the prosecutrix but, she was confined and she was released in the late night but, looking to the material contradiction in her statement with her case diary statement and her conduct that she changed her version drastically, also, she
-:- 13 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 added the story of Vijay without any reason and therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the prosecutrix informed her mother that she was going for tuition as intimated by Vijay and she went to the house of the appellant. Hence, there is possibility that the prosecutrix herself went to the house of the appellant on her own. If she went to the house of the appellant on her own then, no ingredients of offence under Section 363 of IPC was attracted because the appellant did not commit anything in bringing the prosecutrix to his house and therefore, though the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, no offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC could made out against the appellant. In this connection, the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Lalta Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", [AIR 1979 SC 1276] may be perused in which it was found that there was no proof that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent and the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was taken by the accused. On the contrary, it appears that she went herself with the accused and therefore, the accused was acquitted from various charges of abduction and rape. However, the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that the appellant took the prosecutrix from the park to his house and possibility cannot be ruled
-:- 14 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 out that the prosecutrix herself went to the house of the appellant and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix. Consequently, the appellant could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC even. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant for the said offence.
17. So far as the threat is concerned, the prosecutrix has stated against the accused Sangeeta that she gave a threat and thereafter, the prosecutrix went with her. It was stated by the prosecutrix that the appellant shown a knife to her and threatened her. Thereafter, she went to the house of the appellant. However, as discussed above that the prosecutrix left her father's house on her own will, knowing the fact that tutor shall not come for tuition on that particular day and therefore, it shall be presumed that she went herself to the house of the appellant and therefore, her story of threat cannot be accepted. There is no eye witness in the case to support the case of the prosecution. If case diary statement of the prosecutrix is perused then, according to her version, the appellant committed rape upon her in the park and he did not give any threat to her to come to his house. If the appellant did not take the prosecutrix to his house according to her own version then, there was no
-:- 15 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997 possibility of giving any threat by the appellant to the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant gave any threat to the prosecutrix and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law and fact in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 506 (II) of IPC.
18. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that no rape was proved to be committed with the prosecutrix. She was not kidnapped or abducted and no threat was given to her. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be convicted for offence punishable under Sections 363/366, 376 (1) or 506 (II) of IPC. The appeal filed by the appellant can be accepted and consequently, it is hereby allowed. The conviction as well as the sentence directed against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363/366, 376 (1) and 506 (II) of IPC are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges appended against him. He would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if he has deposited the same before the trial Court.
19. The appellant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
-:- 16 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.1893 of 1997
20. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 7/5/2014 Pushpendra