Chattisgarh High Court
Mohan Rawat vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 March, 2024
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 883 of 2003
Mohan Rawat, s/o Banauram Rawat, aged abotu 20 years, r/o Khisora Thana,
Magar Road, District-Dhamtari (CG) ---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through PS Magar Road, District-Dhamtari CG
---- Respondent
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Shri Suresh Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Surendra Kumar Dewangan, PL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 15.03.2024
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction, and order of sentence dated 11.08.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Session Trial-419 of 2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 450 of the IPC and sentenced RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for six months; and RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for three months, respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, prosecutrix (PW1), aged about 36 years, has lodged FIR (Ex.P1) to the Police against the appellant, alleging that on 07.07.2002, when she was in her house alone, her servant i.e. the appellant, came inside her house, and committed rape upon her in the kitchen and fled away. Immediately after the incident, she informed it to the neighbour, Chitrangad, thereafter, to Sarpanch- Hemant Sahu, and Ramlal. In the next morning, she went along with the Kotwar to lodge the report at Magarlod Cra 883 of 2003 2 Police Station. On the basis of report lodged by the victim, Police registered the offence under Sections 450 and 376 of the IPC. She was sent for her medical examination to the Government Hospital, Magarlod, where she was examined by Dr Smt Sharda Thakur (PW7), who gave her report vide Ex.P6. While examining the victim, the doctor has not found any external injury or scratch on her body and she opined that she was not able to confirm diagnosis about hymen cut. She referred the victim to Mekahara hospital, Raipur for Gynic test. Two slides of her vaginal swab were prepared and handed over to the Police for FSL examination of the same. Her petti-coat and pair of shoes of male member were seized from the victim vide Ex.P2. Spot Map (Ex.P15) was prepared by the Police, and another spot map Ex.P10 was prepared by the Patwari. Appellant was arrested on 09.07.2002 and he too was sent for his medical examination to the Government Hospital, Magarlod, where PW8 Dr TR Dhruv examined the appellant, and gave his report vide Ex.P8, in which he found the appellant to be capable for sexual intercourse. No injuries were found on the body of appellant also. The slides prepared from the vaginal swabs were seized vide Ex.P13, and sent for FSL examination. The clothes of prosecutrix and the appellant were also sent for FSL examination to the forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The statement of prosecutrix as well as the witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 CrPC. After completion of Investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC.
3. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, from where it was transferred to the learned trial Court for trial. Learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections Cra 883 of 2003 3 376(1) and 450 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him, pleaded innocence, and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. He pleaded that his mother belongs to the Congress party and was a candidate in the election of Ward member, whereas, the prosecutrix was the member of Bharatiya Janata Party and there was an altercation between them, and that is why the appellant has been falsely implicated by the victim in the case. The appellant also has submitted his written explanation under Section 233(2) of the CrPC and has examined one defence witness in his support.
5. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, learned trial court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, which make the case of prosecution doubtful. He would further submit that prosecutrix is aged about 36 years, and the appellant, is of 20 years at the time of incident. He was working as the milk man in her house. The manner in which the act of rape was described by the prosecutrix cannot constitute the offence of rape.
Cra 883 of 2003 4 There is every reason for false implication of the appellant in the offence, as no injury has been found on the body of prosecutrix as well as the appellant, or any sign of protest has been shown by the prosecutrix to escape from the situation. Looking to the age of both the persons, she definitely was over powered to resist herself from the offence but there was no attempt by her in her rescue. The persons, to whom the incident was said to have been informed by the prosecutrix immediately after the incident, have not supported the case of prosecution and examined. Looking to the conduct and the manner in which the allegation of rape is levelled against the appellant, false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out and therefore, appellant is entitled for acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix has duly supported the case by saying that she was subjected to rape by the appellant in her house. Although there is no injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix, but that itself is not sufficient to dis-believe her evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix does not require any corroboration by other evidence. He would further submit that the evidence available on record pointing out the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him in the alleged offence and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence requires no interference by this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Cra 883 of 2003 5
9. PW1, the prosecutrix has stated in her deposition that the appellant was her servant who was working as Milkman in her house, and maintain the cattle, he also milking the cattle of her house. On the date of incident, at about 7 pm, he came to her house, put the cow milk in the almirah, closed the outer door of her house and entered her kitchen and committed rape upon her. She raised alarm and rushed towards the door. She rushed to the neighbour of her house Lachanu Satnami, but he was not there in his house, and his daughter Neetu was there in his house, she informed the incident to her that the appellant has thrown her on the ground and fled away. Thereafter, she went towards the house of Chitrangad, who was taking his dinner at that time, and she informed him about the incident, then, he advised her to go to the house of Sarpanch and then, she went to the house of Sarpanch-Hemant, and informed the incident to him, and then, the Sarpanch has advised her to go to the house of Ramlal, who is the president of Sahu Community. Then, she went to the house of Ramlal but he went to sleep, and his wife asked her to come in the morning. From there, she again came to the house of Sarpanch, and then he sent her to the house of Lakhan Kotwar, to whom she disclosed the incident. Lakhan Kotwar said that he will go to the Police Station in the morning, and she will accompany him, if she wishes to come with him. She was being taken by him to the house of Arjunlal and the Kotwar informed Arjunlal about the incident and then, the Kotwar was advised to lodge the report. On the next day, at about 12 noon, Kotwar went to the Police Station to lodge the report along with the prosecutrix. After lodging the report, she was sent for her medical examination to the hospital.
In her cross examination, she stated that the appellant was doing the work of maintaining her cattle and taken them for grazing. She admitted that Cra 883 of 2003 6 she used to talk to the appellant and about her offering tea to him, whenever she was taking tea. She further stated that she is residing along with her nephew and niece. Her niece has eloped with another person from the date of incident, her nephew is not residing with her and at the time of incident, he was not at the house but she has disclosed the incident to him also. She further stated that she kept the door closed when she was inside the house. The appellant has come after closing the door of gali and verandah. She was cooking food in verandah and the place where she was cooking her food and the appellant committed rape on the very place. In Paragraphs 16 to 20 of her cross examination, she described the manner and act of the appellant. She stated in her deposition that she received injuries on her private parts as well as other parts of the body and disclosed the same in the FIR, and if it is not there, she could not tell the reason. She further stated that after putting the milk in the almirah, the appellant closed the door of her house, has not been informed to the Police but if it is there in her police statement Ex.D1, she could not tell the reason. She again reiterated that she disclosed the incident to Lachnu, Neetu, Chitrangd, Ramlal, Sarpanch-Hemant and Lakhan Kotwar. She admitted that she was canvassing for the BJP party in favour of one Deep Saha who was the Ex.MLA. She admitted that she was the Ex-MLA and therefore, there is rivallary in between the two groups. She further admitted that mother of the appellant is the ward member of the village.
10. PW5 Neetu, to whom the prosecutrix has informed the incident on the very first occasion, when she went to the house of Lachnu and when he was not there in his house, his daughter PW5 stated to have been informed about the incident, but Neetu, PW5 has not stated anything that the prosecutrix has informed the incident to her. Even this witness has not been declared as Cra 883 of 2003 7 hostile witness, she only stated in her deposition that the prosecutrix has only informed that 'Rawat is assaulting her', except this, nothing has been disclosed to her by the prosecutrix.
11. PW4, Chitrangad is the person to whose house the prosecutrix came from the house of PW5, and informed him about the incident. This witness has stated in his deposition that the prosecutrix has informed him that the appellant only tried to pull her saree to raise quarrel with her, then he advised her to go to the President and Secretary of the community. PW 4 also declared as hostile witness and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
12. Sarpanch-Hemant Sahu, PW6, is the person to whom the prosecutrix went after the house of PW4-Chitrangad. He has stated in his deposition that in the night at about 9.00 pm, the prosecutrix came to his house and informed that the appellant has assaulted her on the issue of mutual dispute and he advised her for calling community meeting and sent her to the President of the Community. After some time, she again came to his house and informed that the President is sleeping and his wife asked her to come in the morning. She told him that she informed the Kotwar about the incident. PW6 has stated that the prosecutrix has not disclosed anything about the incident of rape upon her. PW6 has also not been declared as hostile and in his cross examination, he has stated that the prosecutrix has stated him about the incident of quarrel with respect to the wages, claimed by the appellant. This witness has admitted that mother of the appellant is ward member in the village supporting Congress Party, whereas the prosecutrix is the member of BJP and working for that party. He further admitted that at the time of Panchayat elections, the dispute arose between the mother of the appellant and the prosecutrix.
Cra 883 of 2003 8
13. Ramlal Sahu, PW9 is the witness, to whose house the prosecutrix had gone after the house of PW6 Sarpanch-Hemant Sahu. He has not stated anything in his deposition that the prosecutrix has disclosed anything to him about the incident.
14. PW2 is Lakhan Kotwar of the village, to whom the prosecutrix went from the house of PW9. He has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident at about 9.00pm, the prosecutrix came to his house and informed that appellant had fled away after quarrelling with her but he has not stated that the prosecutrix has informed the incident of rape. This witness also declared hostile. In para 8 of his deposition, he stated that the prosecutrix has only informed him that the appellant had a quarrel with her and fled away. He further stated that in the morning he went along with the prosecutrix to the Police Station for lodging the report.
15. PW3, Arjunlal is the person the prosecutrix had gone to inform the incident after informing the same to PW2 Lakhan Kotwar. PW3 stated in his deposition that the prosecutrix has informed him about the incident of rape committed by the appellant. In his cross examination, he had stated that the prosecutrix has not informed about the manner in which appellant acted. He admitted that Lakhan Kotwar has not informed any incident to him.
16. From the evidence of prosecutrix PW1 it reveals that immediately after the alleged incident she went to the house of her neighbour, Lachnu, father of PW5-Neetu, from where she went to the house of PW4-Chitrnagad, then to the house of PW6-Sarpanch, thereafter, to the house of PW9-Ramlal Sahu, then to the house of PW2-Lakhan Kotwar and PW3-Arjunlal, but none of these Cra 883 of 2003 9 witnesses have supported case of the prosecution that they were informed by the prosecutrix about commission of rape by the appellant upon her. They only informed about the quarrel raised by the appellant with prosecutrix, and fleeing away. PW3 has stated that prosecutrix has informed him about the incident but prosecutrix has not stated in her deposition that she informed PW3 about the incident. In para 4 of her deposition, prosecutrix had stated that PW3 was being informed about the incident by PW2 whereas PW2 has not stated anything in his deposition that he had been informed about the incident by PW3. No one is there to support the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix has informed about the incident immediately after the commission of alleged rape.
17. In para 16 to 20 of deposition of the prosecutrix, she narrated in detail the manner and the act of the appellant, which shows that she was a consenting party, if the act of the appellant, if any, although the appellant has denied from the alleged offence. She was aged about 36 years at the time of incident and the appellant was aged about 20 years. She could have resisted and protest from the incident by teeth biting or scratching by her nails but there is no any sign or fact of protest, has been produced by the prosecution, and the doctor who has medically examined the prosecutrix has also not noticed any external injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Even the injury received by her on her head stated by her has not been noticed by the doctor, PW7 who has medically examined her.
18. Vaginal swab of prosecutrix, and the clothes of the prosecutrix as well as appellant were sent for FSL examination to the Regional FSL Raipur but the report has not been produced by the prosecution which amounts to withholding Cra 883 of 2003 10 the material evidence to prove the case against the appellant. Further, the defence of the appellant is that his mother belongs to a particular party in the village and the prosecutrix too is a member of the rival party and there was a dispute in between them earlier, in the Panchayat Election. The dispute between the rival parties was admitted by the prosecutrix as well as the Sarpanch (PW6). The Appellant has given his written explanation which is available on record as provided under section 233 (2) of the CrPC and also examined his defence witness-DW1 in his support. DW1-Sohan Yadav in his deposition that earlier, he was working in the house of the prosecutrix, since her character was not good, and she asked him to satisfy her lust, and for that reason only he also left his job. By examining this defence witness, appellant tried to establish that the prosecutrix was not of good character that itself is not sufficient to brand her as alleged.
19. Evidence of the prosecutrix does not require corroboration of the evidence. The version of the prosecutrix commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which gather some doubt in the mind of the court on the veracity of the prosecutrix's evidence, then it will not be safe to rely on the said version. There is contradiction and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the prosecutrix is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case.
Cra 883 of 2003 11
20. From overall evidence produced by the prosecution, cogent evidence is missing in the case to prove the allegation against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The appellant is only required to raise suspicion over the case of prosecution in which he has succeeded in the case, and therefore, it can be held that the prosecution could not establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
21. In the result, by giving the benefit of doubt, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant is hereby set aside, he is acquitted from the charge of 450 and 376(1) of the IPC.
22. Appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are continued for a further period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of the CrPC.
23. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma