Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwant Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 July, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007 ..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007
Date of Decision : 10.07.2012
Rajwant Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.P.Malik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 01.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) Ambala, whereby respondent No.2 was acquitted.
The brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.2006, Rajwant Singh (PW4), father of the prosecutrix, came to the Police Station, Mahesh Nagar, and presented complaint (Ex.PH) on the basis of which DDR No.18 (Ex.PG) was recorded. The statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statement so recorded formal FIR (Ex.PD/2) was registered. In her statement, the prosecutrix disclosed that in the year 2003, she was a student of Gobind Commonwealth Public School, Patiala and one -Satnam Kaur was her classmate who Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007 ..2..
introduced the prosecutrix with her brother-Amanjit Singh (respondent No.2/accused). One day, Amanjit Singh took the prosecutrix on his motor cycle to a Studio and offered a cup of tea to her and thereafter, she became unconscious. After regaining consciousness, she found herself undressed and in a naked condition. The prosecutrix found that a ray of light was coming from a hole in the Studio and on enquiry made by her about the ray of light, Amanjit Singh pretended that the same was sun light. The prosecutrix went to the toilet where she realized that she had been raped. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was dropped at Gurudawara in Patiala. The prosecutrix requested her father that she may be taken back to Ambala. However, she did not tell anything to her father and thereafter, she was admitted in a school at Ambala. In December, 2005, Amanjit Singh met the prosecutrix on her way to home from the School near Mahesh Nagar Chowk, Ambala, and showed the nude photographs of the prosecutrix to her. Amanjit Singh asked the prosecutrix to bring Rs.5,000/- and due to fear, she stole Rs.5,000/- from her house and gave it to respondent No.2/accused. Again a demand of Rs.500/- was made by respondent No.2/accused and the prosecutrix was pressurized to accompany him. The respondent No.2-accused pressurized the prosecutrix to disclose her residential address but she did not oblige him. Thereafter, the prosecutrix stopped going to school under fear as respondent No.2/accused had told her that if she disclosed anything to anyone then she along with her father would be killed. One day father of the prosecutrix checked Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007 ..3..
the cash and finding the same to be deficit, enquiries were made from the prosecutrix and she told about the entire incident to her father including the fact that the accused/respondent No.2 had taken approximately Rs.50,000/- from her. In her supplementary statement to the police, the prosecutrix stated that she was raped in the area of Gobind Nagar, Ambala Cantt., also by putting her under fear and showing her nude photographs.
The medico-legal report (Ex.PB) of the prosecutrix was got prepared from the Govt. Hospital, Ambala. The prosecutrix demarcated the house of respondent No.2-accused from where he was arrested. The matriculation certificate (Ex.P1) of the prosecutrix was taken into possession by the police. After completion of the formalities of the investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C was prepared and presented before learned Area Magistrate. After completing the formalities of supplying the copies of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C to respondent No.2/accused, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with law.
Finding a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506, IPC, the charges were framed to which the accused/respondent No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:
PW-1 Dr.T.S.Sahni, Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. who had prepared MLR (Ex.PA) of Amanjit Singh-respondent No.2/ accused.
Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007 ..4..
PW-2 Dr.Bela Sharma had prepared the medico legal report
(Ex.PB) of the prosecutrix.
PW-3 Harsimarn Kaur - Prosecutrix- She did not support the
case of the prosecution and refused to identify the accused. It was deposed by her that the accused neither committed rape on her nor took her photographs. The prosecutrix was declared hostile and the Publilc Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine her but nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited in her cross-examination.
PW-4 Rajwant Singh-complainant-father of the prosecutrix-
He had not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
PW-5 Constable Ram Saran- He prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PF).
PW-6 MHC Dharamvir- He proved DDR No.18 recorded on 05.01.2006 and the certified copy of the report (Ex.PG).
PW-7 SI Yash Pal- He prepared the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.
PW-8 Head Constable-Mahal Singh- He is witness to the recovery memo (Ex.PJ) vide which matriculation certificate (Ex.P1) of the prosecutrix was taken into possession.
PW-9 ASI Raj Kumar-He had registered the formal FIR. PW-10 ASI Dharam Pal- He had investigated the case.
Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007 ..5.. PW-11 Ms.Ranjana Aggarwal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
She had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C.
On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and claimed that he was falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was led by the accused/respondent No.2.
After hearing both the parties, learned trial court acquitted respondent No.2/accused. Hence, Rajwant Singh, father of the prosecutrix, has filed the present revision challenging the judgment of acquittal.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously examined the material available on record.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in her statement recorded in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix had specifically stated that the accused- respondent No.2 committed rape with her. He further submits that in her supplementary statement recorded by the police, she (prosecutrix) had stated to the police that the rape was also committed by respondent No.2-accused with her within the jurisdiction of Ambala Cantt. also, therefore, the prosecution had been able to prove the case against respondent No.2-accused. I am afraid that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are tenable. The statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007 ..6..
cannot be termed as substantive evidence. The deposition made by the prosecutrix when she appeared in the Court as prosecution witness (PW3) was the substantive evidence wherein she totally denied the allegations of committing rape by respondent No.2- accused. Even she failed to identify him. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the trial court be set aside because the prosecutrix had levelled the allegations against the accused/respondent No.2 in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C, is not tenable.
It is also apposite to mention here that the complainant- Rajwant Singh (PW-4), father of the prosecutrix, also did not support the prosecution case and as such, was declared hostile. Undoubtedly, during cross-examination, he admitted that her daughter had told him that the accused/respondent No.2 had committed rape with her and taken her nude photographs on the basis of which, she was being blackmailed by him. He also admitted the fact of lodging the report.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show from the statement of the prosecutrix the fact that she told her father with regard to commission of rape by the accused/respondent No.2 and blackmailing the petitioner at his instance or about the nude photographs of his daughter. Learned counsel failed to point out the said fact. In such an eventuality all what has been stated by Rajwant Singh (PW-4) can be termed as a hearsay evidence which is not admissible.
Criminal Revision No.1466 of 2007 ..7..
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix did not state anything against the accused/respondent No.2 and there was no other material to connect the respondent No.2 with the crime, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial court had rightly exonerated him of the charges levelled against him.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the criminal revision, the same is hereby dismissed.
10th July, 2012 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge