Punjab-Haryana High Court
Noor Jahan vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 17 November, 2010
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007
Date of decision 17.11.2010.
Noor Jahan
...... Petitioner.
versus
State of Haryana and ors.
...... Respondents.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Shri J.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Shri Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
K.C.PURI, J.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 2.6.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar vide which the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were acquitted.
The facts leading to the present case are that a private complaint was filed by prosecutrix (name not to be disclosed) on May 4, 1999 against the three accused persons in respect of the alleged incident which had occurred on April 21, 1998. It is alleged by prosecutrix that she is 32 years of age. She had lost her husband long ago. She was waiting for a conveyance at the bus stop of village Kapal Mochan on 21.04.1998 in the society of Shri Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar, who was also Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 2 waiting for a transport bound for the town of Bilaspur. All the three accused belonged to her native village, the complainant readily boarded the jeep for her native village of Machhrauli. However, the accused had some other designs up their sleeves. They directed the vehicle towards the side of village Ranjitpur which fact caused apprehension in the mind of the complainant about the ultimate aim of the accused and she requested them to drop her but they refused to accede to her request. She was driven to a secluded place where accused Harcharan Singh allegedly caught hold of her and accused Jaggu Singh gagged her mouth. Accused Lajwant allegedly raped her. The other two accused also desired to outrage her modesty but she was fortunate enough to release herself from their clutches and raise alarm. They abandoned her and sped away in their vehicle.
The complainant allegedly walked down to the main road and set out on foot for police station, Bilsapur. PW Gurdev Singh arrived their riding a motor cycle and learnt about the entire incident from her. He then took her to the police station, where she lodged the report, but no action was initiated by the officer incharge of Police Station, Bilaspur. The complainant approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri on 30.04.1998 but of no use. She then approached the Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar on 07.05.1998 and submitted an application before him, which was marked to the officer incharge of Police Station, Bilaspur. The police did not initiate any action in the matter and consigned the report to the records on the plea that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. The accused had obtained the thumb impression of the complainant on a blank piece of paper in a Panchayat convened by them in Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 3 the village.
The complainant then moved a petition before this Court and sought directions to file a private complaint before the area Magistrate.
After recording the preliminary evidence the learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.
After perusing the record and hearing both the sides, the trial Court charge-sheeted the accused-respondents for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 23.10.2003 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined victim as PW-1 and Gurdev Singh as PW-2. The prosecution evidence was closed by the learned Public Prosecutor in this regard.
Statement of the accused have been recorded under Section 313
(b) Cr.P.C . They have alleged that they have been implicated in a total false case at the instance of the complainant due to party faction in the village.
The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 2.6.2006.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the complainant has filed the present revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 4 trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused. The prosecutrix/complainant was waiting for the conveyance at Bus Stand at village Kapal Mochan on 21.04.1998. The accused persons namely Lajwant, Harcharan Singh and Jaggu Singh reached the bus stand and stopped the jeep/car and told the complainant that they are going to their village and prosecutrix could have lift. The prosecutrix had taken the lift. When the vehicle reached in the area of Ranjitpur, it was taken to a kacha path and was stopped. Lajwant torn off her clothes and committed rape upon her. The other co-accused caught hold of her from arms and legs. She was threatened to be done to death in case she discloses their act to any one. The prosecutrix and other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. So, the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents.
The main ground taken by the trial Court for acquitting the accused-respondents is that petitioner had compromised with the accused and that she had not narrated the version of rape in the earlier complaint. The prosecutrix had not entered into compromise with any one, but the police had used its influence in obtaining the signatures/thumb impression of the petitioner for compromise.
Gurdev Singh PW deposed in Court in cross-examination that he is living separately from his brother Jarnail Singh. So, the question of Gurdev Singh has an axe to grind against Lajwant does not arise. The delay in filing the complaint has already been explained. The local police has not taken any action against the accused. The petitioner has to approach this Court. The observation made by this Court has been wrongly interpreted. The High Court has given the petitioner liberty to file the Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 5 complaint.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the following authorities :-
(1) Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 89 ;
(2) Leela Ram (Dead )through Duli Chand vs. State of Haryana 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 588; (3) State of Rajasthan vs. N.K.- the accused 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 471 ;
(4) State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain 1999(1) RCR 411;
(5) M.Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India and anr. 1990(1) RCR 423 ;
(6) Baba Jagga Singh vs. State of Punjab 2002(2) RCR (Criminal ) 94;
(7) Akhtar vs. State of Haryana 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 91 ;
(8) Kamel Singh vs. State of M.P. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2472 ;
(9) Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753 ;
(10) Rajendra Datta Zarekar vs. State of Goa 2007 (5) Law Herald (SC) 3729 ;
(11) Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 168 (S.C.) ;
Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 6
12. Madho Ram and another vs. The State of U.P. AIR 1973 Supreme Court 469 ;
13. Kishsen alias Kishni vs. State of Haryana 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal ) 73 ;
14. Munshi Prasad and Ors. vs. State of Bihar 2001(4) RCR (Criminal ) 415 ; and
15. State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain 1990 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 645 ;
Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.
Normally the statement of the prosecutrix should be accepted as no lady generally made accusation of rape as her honour is put to stake after levelling such allegations but i.e. not the universal rule. It depends upon circumstances of each case whether the testimony of the prosecutrix should be accepted or whether her testimony is exception to the above general rule.
The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, reached to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix has admitted in her cross- examination that she submitted complaint dated 23.4.1998 Ex.DA. In that complaint it is mentioned that accused had snatched away her ear rings and tried to outrage her modesty. Now the complainant has taken a stand that accused committed rape upon her. The complainant has also admitted that she sent complaint dated 8.5.1998 Ex.DB to Station House Officer, Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 7 Bilaspur. In the said application also it is mentioned that there was manhandling by the accused and they tried to commit rape upon her. The prosecutrix has admitted that her signature bears on document Ex.DC. In the said document, it is mentioned that prosecutrix has reported to Station House Officer, Police Station Bilaspur that she has compromised with the accused and she does not want any action against them. Besides prosecutrix, the prosecution has examined PW-2 Gurdev Singh, who has stated that accused have forcibly taken the prosecutrix in the jeep. However, this witness has his own axe to grind against the accused. This witness has admitted that Naresh Kumar son of Jarnail is his nephew and said Naresh Kumar was implicated in a case under Section 307 IPC and was convicted along with other co-accused. He has also admitted that Lajwant accused is brother of Kulwant Singh. Said Kulwant Singh deposed against Lajwant in the said case under Section 307 IPC. So, in order to settle the score against Kulwant Singh, his brother has been made a scape goat and on that account Gurdev Singh is appearing as a witness. No other evidence has been produced by the prosecutrix. There is no medical evidence produced by the prosecutrix, to prove the factum of rape or injuries. It could not be possible that without injury prosecutrix could be kidnapped. She must have resisted when she came to know about her kidnapping but there is no medico-legal report produced on the file. No doubt, in an offence of rape the conviction can be maintained in the absence of medical evidence but that depends upon facts of each case. In the present case, the accused has been rightly acquitted. A suggestion was put to the prosecutrix that S.K.Dhanda brother of Gurdev Singh PW has drafted the complainant but Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 8 that suggestion has been denied. However, she has admitted that brother of Gurdev Singh is practising Advocate at Jagadhri. The prosecutrix in the examination-in-chief has stated that she sustained injuries while resisting the accused but that fact has not been corroborated by any medical evidence.
The complainant/prosecutrix is a married woman having children she has given her age as 45 years although PW-2 Gurdev Singh has assessed her age as 50 years. Prosecutrix has made a story that she became unconscious after the alleged rape which fact does not find mention in Ex.DA and DB the previous application. A lady, who can go to the extent of making false allegations of rape can go to any extent. It so seems that Gurdev Singh has used the prosecutrix as a tool to settle the score that Kulwant Singh appeared as a witness against the nephew of Naresh Kumar.
Authority Madan Lal's case (supra) is distinguishable as in that case prosecutrix was school going girl of 13 years old and there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused.
In authority Leela Ram (Dead ) through Duli Chand's case (supra), it has been held that trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. There is no dispute to that proposition of law but in the present case the prosecution version is doubtful.
In authority State of Rajasthan vs. N.K.-the accused 's case (supra), it has been held that evidentiary value of deposition of the prosecutrix is equivalent to the statement like an injured witness. There is no dispute to that proposition of law but the fact remains that the Court can convict a person in case the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of the Court. In the present case, the trial Court has rightly held that Criminal Revision No.286 of 2007 9 testimony of the prosecutrix is not trustworthy.
In authorities State of Maharashtra and M.Ahamedkuttys' case (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that evidence of the prosecutrix must receive the same way as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence but in the same ruling it has been held that the court has to see whether there is a strong motive to falsely implicate the accused.
Similar view was taken in authorities Baba Jagga Singh, Akhtar, Kamel Singh, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, Rajendra Datta Zarekar ; Allarakha K. Mansuri , Madho Ram and another, Kishsen alias Kishni, Munshi Prasad and Ors. and State of Maharashtras' case (supra).
So, in view of the above discussion, no ground for interference in the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court is made out.
Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI )
JUDGE
November 17 , 2010
sv