Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Deepak Chand on 9 August, 2018
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Appeal No. 4165 of 2013 Reserved on : 02.08.2018 .
Decided on: 09.08.2018.
State of H.P. ...Appellant.
Versus
Deepak Chand ...Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the Appellant
r : toMr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Dy. A.G.
For the Respondent : Mr. Nimish Gupta and Mr. Mohar Singh,
Advocates, for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), the State has filed the instant appeal.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2004 the prosecutrix (PW1) filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, wherein allegations of rape was leveled against the respondent. It was alleged that she was employed as water-carrier in the Government Primary School, Swahal and, on 05.05.2004, while returning from the school after 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP 2 getting salary, then at about 1:00 p.m., the respondent accosted her and later on raped her. He also threatened to kill her if she .
disclosed the facts to any person.
3. This complaint was marked to SHO, Sujanpur, who after holding inquiry filed a cancellation report Ext. PW8/D. However dis-satisifed, the prosecutrix moved an application Ext.PW1/C to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur on 02.06.2004 and upon this FIR Ext. PW8/C was registered and the case came to be investigated.
4. On completion of the investigation, final report was presented in the Court on the basis of which charges came to be framed against the accused on 02.07.2008, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. On conclusion of the trial, the respondent was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment/order dated 22.07.2008. However, on appeal having been preferred against the said judgment/order, the conviction and sentence was set aside by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 and the case was remanded to the Sessions Judge with a specific direction that the respondent be permitted to lead evidence to prove the attendance register of the Government Primary School Swahal, especially, for the month of May, 2004 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP 3 and thereafter to confront the prosecutrix and another witness (PW5) with the said register.
.
6. It shall be apposite to refer to the relevant portion of the judgment/order, which reads thus:-
"3. The accused appellant, by means of Cr.M.P. No. 661 of 2012, has filed an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. The accused appellant has obtained the copies of the attendance registers of the prosecutrix from the Government Primary School, Sawahal and we are concerned with the attendance register for the month of May, 2004. As per this register, the salary was paid to the prosecutrix on 3 rd May, 2004 and 5 th May, 2004 was a holiday being " Budh Purnima". As observed earlier, the complaint was filed more than three weeks later on 11 th June, 2004.
4. To satisfy ourselves, we had called for the original attendance register and we find that the photo copies are true copies of the original register. We, at this stage, are not going into the question whether these registers are properly maintained or not and whether the register depicts the true state of affairs, but the appellant has definitely made out a case for leading additional evidence because if he proves that the entries in this register are correct, then the very basis of the story put up by the prosecutrix would be totally false. Liberty of a citizen is at stake and the additional evidence sought to be placed on record is the registers maintained in a Government School and cannot be lightly brushed aside.
5. In view of the above discussion, we allow the application and permit the appellant to first prove the entries in the registers and thereafter to confront the prosecutrix and PW- 5 with these registers. Since we are allowing the application, obviously the result is that the conviction of the ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP 4 accusedappellant has to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction of the accused - appellant is set aside and the matter is remanded to the .
learned trial Court with the specific direction that the appellant shall be permitted to lead evidence to prove the attendance registers of Government Primary School, Sawahal, District Hamirpur, especially for the month of May, 2004 and thereafter, confront the prosecutrix & PW5 with the said registers.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court, who shall endeavour to dispose of the same at the earliest and in any event not later than 31st January, 2013. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, on 22nd November, 2012. The Registry is directed to ensure that the record is sent back immediately so as to reach the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, by 22nd November, 2012.
7. Since we have acquitted the accused and he was on bail during trial and has now made out a reasonable case that he may be acquitted, we direct that the accused be enlarged on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
20,000/ with one surety in the like amount undertaking to appear before the learned trial Court as directed hereinabove. He shall further undertake to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and as and when called upon to do so."
7. Learned Court below after recording evidence and evaluating the same, acquitted the respondent constraining the State to file the instant appeal.
::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP 58. It is in the aforesaid background that the entire prosecution evidence led prior or subsequent to the remand has .
to be closely scrutnised.
9. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant - State has vehemently argued that the findings returned by the learned trial court are perverse, inasmuch it has not appreciated statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses examined by the prosecutrix in its right perspective, therefore, reached at a wrong conclusion.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Nimish Gupta and Mr. Mohar Singh, learned counsels for the respondent have supported the judgment of acquittal on the ground that the same has been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts as also appreciating the law on the subject.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record of the case carefully.
11. It is now well settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. It is also equally settled that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given circumstances. (Refer: State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP 6 Ram AIR 2006 SC 381, Rajinder Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 16 SCC 69.) However, it has to be borne in .
mind that a case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as any other case and there is no presumption that the prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully.
12. In Rajoo Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the testimony of a victim of rape has to be treated as if she is an injured witness but cannot be presumed to be a gospel truth. It was held that:
"9. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspect and should be believed, the more so as her statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the Court. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP 7 correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. Reference has been made in Gurmit Singh's case to the amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the India .
Penal Code making the penal provisions relating to rape more stringent, and also to Section 114A of the Evidence Act with respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape. It is however significant that Sections 113A and 113B too were inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and dowry death have been raised against the accused.
These two Sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape is visualized as the presumption under Section 114A is extremely restricted in its applicability. This clearly shows that in so far as allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. We believe that it is under these principles that this case, and others such as this one, need to be examined."
13. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, it was held as under:-
"7. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that story is indeed improbable. ....."::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP 8
14. In Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of MP, (2010) 3 SCC 323, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
.
"10. Mr. C.D. Singh has however placed reliance on Moti Lal's case (supra) to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances.
There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has been so emphasised by this Court time and again) but to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story, is an argument that can never be accepted. The test always is as to whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence. We are of the opinion that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one."
15. In Abbas Ahmad Choudhary Vs. State of Assam, 2010 (12) SCC 115, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-
"5. We are however, of the opinion that the involvement of Abbas Ahmad Choudhary seems to be uncertain. It must first be borne in mind that in hery statement recorded on 17th September, 1997, the prosecutrix had not attributed any rape to Abbas Ahmad Choudhary. Likewise, she had stated that he was not one of those who kidnapped her and taken to Jalalpur Tea Estate and on the other hand she categorically stated that while she along with Mizazul Haq and Ranju Das were returning to the village that he had joined them somewhere along the way but had still not committed rape on her. It is true that in her statement in court she has attributed rape to Abbas Ahmad Choudhary as well, but in the light of the aforesaid contradictions some doubt is created with regard to his involvement. Some corroboration of rape could have been found if Abbas Ahmad Choudhary too had been apprehended and taken to the police station by P.W. 5 - Ranjit Dutta the Constable. The Constable, however, made a statement which was ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 9 corroborated by the Investigating Officer that only two of the appellants Ranju Das and Md. Mizalul Haq along with the prosecutrix had been brought to the police station as Abbas .
Ahmad Choudhary had run away while en route to the police station. Resultantly, an inference can be rightly drawn that Abbas Ahmad Choudhary was perhaps not in the car when the complainant and two of the appellants had been apprehended by Constable Ranjit Dutta. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the involvement of Abbas Ahmad Choudhary is doubtful. We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully."
16. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court commented about the quality of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, which would be made basis to convict the accused and it was held:-
"15. In our considered opinion, the sterling witness should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 10 accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever .
strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have correlation with each and everyone of other supporting such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a sterling witness whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
17. Reverting to the facts, the prosecutrix appeared as PW1 and stated that her husband died in the year 2000. She was working as a water-carrier in the Government Primary School, Swahal. On 05.05.2004, she had gone to Centre School Chabutra to get salary. While returning from there at about 12:30-1:00 pm she was stopped at Bharmeli and purchased some articles. She kept some of the books in the shop, which she had brought from ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 11 the centre school. Then she proceeded towards her school.
There was a lonely jungle where respondent met her. He was .
standing with the scooter on road side. He asked her to take lift on the scooter and offered to drop her at the school but she declined. The respondent then slapped her and pushed her on the road side drain as a result whereof she sustained injuries on her right knee. Then he dragged her from her legs and took her downwards the road. She kept crying but he gagged her mouth with her dupatta. She told him that he was like her son but he removed her salwar and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her by threatening her with knife and stated that in case she disclosed this incident to any one he would kill her alongwith her children. He then fled away from the spot. Then, she went to the school and kept the books there and thereafter proceed to her house. She further stated that she was under lot of tension due to this incident and also because of the threat. So she was in a fix whether to disclose about the incident to anyone or not.
She further claimed that she was worried about her children being a lonely widow as her in-laws were residing separately from her. After about 15-20 days, she went to the school where the headmaster asked her to take the dak of the school, for which she was again required to pass through the same lonely jungle. The headmaster then persuaded her to disclose the reason. Then, she moved the application Ext.PW1/A to ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 12 Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur. The police investigated the case and scolded her for giving late information. The police told .
her that she may even lose her job for late reporting and they forced her to write some paper to the effect that she had made false allegations against the respondent. This document is Ext.PW1/B, which according to the witnesses, was prepared under pressure from the police officials. At that time, even the Ward Panch Malkan Devi was also present there and had also sided with the police officials. Thereafter she gave an application Ext.PW1/C to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur and also approached the local MLA, who telephoned the police to proceed in the matter. The police had also got her medical examined and as such MLC was signed by her. She identified her shirt Ext.P1, Salwar Ext. P2 and underwear Ext.P3, which were shown to her in the Court and stated that these clothes were handed over by her to the police, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/D, which was signed by her.
18. In cross-examination, this witness (PW1) admitted that the respondent belongs to Naudan and two years prior to this incident had settled in village Bind Palanhana. She further stated that wife of the respondent is her niece and she knew the respondent since his marriage. The marriage of respondent was also attended by her. She denied the suggestion that she was interested for settling the marriage of the respondent ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 13 somewhere else in her relation. She also denied the suggestion that she was not on speaking terms with the respondent prior to .
the incident. She denied that some quarrel had taken place between her Dewar and the respondent and her relatives during the marriage. She further stated that she had not disclosed about the incident to any one before prior to informing the headmaster. She further stated that she was dragged by the accused upto a distance of 10-15 mtrs. There were stones and bushes at that place. She again stated that she was dragged by the respondent from her leg as a result whereof she had sustained injuries on her right knee and on other parts of the body. She denied that the respondent had not committed rape with her.
19. After the case was remanded back by this Court, the prosecutrix was again examined on 01.12.2012, wherein she admitted that she had marked the presence in the attendance register on arrival and departure from the school. She admitted that Ext. DW1/A was the true copy of the attendance register for the month of May, 2004 and she had signed twice on this at Mark A & Mark B, out of which one signature was regarding arrival in school and second is regarding departure from the school. She further admitted that in Ext.DW1/A, she had not marked her presence in the attendance register w.e.f.
::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 1402.05.2004 to 05.05.2004 being Sunday, salary day and holidays, respectively.
.
20. On the request of the prosecution, the prosecutrix was again examined on 27.12.2017, wherein she deposed that she had received salary on 05.05.2004 at Primary Centre School, Chabutra. On being cross-examined, she stated that incident of rape had taken place with her on 05.05.2004, while she was coming back to school and she did not tell about this to the headmaster because she was under threat from the respondent.
21. At this stage, we may make a note of the fact that as per the statement of the prosecutrix, the incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 05.05.2004, whereas she reported the matter to the police for the first time on 11.06.2004 after more than one month through application Ext.PW1/A.
22. The prosecution has examined the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix Smt. Salo Devi as PW3. However her testimony is based on hearsay. The prosecution as thereafter examined Rikhi Ram as PW4 whose testimony is again based on hearsay. Rather the testimonies of both these witnesses are totally vague and have, therefore, rightly been discarded by the learned court below, as they have not even mentioned the date when the prosecutrix had told them about the alleged incident.
23. That apart, in case the statement of PW4 is taken into consideration, it reveals that the matter was disclosed to ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 15 him only after the complaint had already been made by the prosecutrix to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur.
.
24. Evidently, there is a considerable delay in lodging of the FIR. However, it is more than settled by now that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of the delay in lodging the FIR. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search, if any, explanation has been offered for delay and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecutrix fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution.
However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.
25. Now, in case the complaint Ext.PW1/A is perused, it would be noticed that it has been mentioned therein that the prosecutirx could not report the matter earlier as she was all alone in the house and had pain in her leg. However, when she appeared in the Court as PW1 on 17.07.2008, she tried to explain the delay by stating that she was under threat from the respondent. She also stated that she was under tension and was worried about the future of the children being widow. In other wards, meaning thereby, that the prosecutrix had nowhere ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 16 deposed in the court that she could not report the matter earlier to the police as she was all alone in her house and had pain in .
her leg. The version put-forth by the prosecutrix assumes significance in view of the defence evidence led by the respondent by proving on record the copy of her attendance register of the school. The perusal of which shows that prosecutrix was present in the school on 06.05.2004 and 07.05.2004 and so on. It further reveals that from the date of alleged incident till the end of May, 2004, the prosecutrix had never been on leave for a single day and she had been coming to school as usual whereas in her testimony before the Court had categorically stated that after the incident she had sopped going to school till the date, she had submitted an application to S.P., Hamirpur about the incident, on the advice of the headmaster
26. Apart from the above, we notice that there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why she did not disclose about the incident, in question, to anybody else including the teachers and other colleagues and continued coming to the school as usual. What is more surprising is that she even did not choose to disclose this fact to her mother-in-law or even her father-in-law or any other close relative.
27. As regards the defence of threat put up by the prosecutrix in a complaint Ext.PW1/C filed on 26.06.2004, she had stated that respondent was serving in the Army and after ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 17 committing rape on her had ran away on the same day. If that be so, then there was no occasion for the respondent to threaten .
her or for the prosecutrix to feel threatened.
28. Now adverting to the another significant aspect of the case, we notice that it is the specific case of the prosecutrix that she was dragged by the accused up to a distance of 10-15 mtrs. and there was stones and bushes at that place, but surprisingly enough, the impact of such dragging did not have any effect on the clothes worn by the prosecutrix.
29. That apart, even the MLC of the prosecutrix did not show that there was any evidence of external injury. Though as per the prosecutrix the headmaster had only become inquisitive after he had seen the prosecutrix limping, upon which she had revealed the entire story to the headmaster.
30. Now adverting to the other evidence on record, it would be noticed that it is the specific case of the prosecutrix that she at the time of incident had been crying but the respondent gagged her with dupatta. However, in case her complaint is seen, it would be revealed that therein it has been mentioned that at the time of incident she wanted to cry but could not do so as the respondent had gagged her mouth with her handkerchief. However, in Ext.PW1/C, she stated that she raised cry but there was none to listen to her.
::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 1831. Apart from the aforesaid contradictions, it would also be noticed that prosecutrix while appearing as PW1 stated that .
when she was proceedings towards her school through the lonely jungle, the respondent met her and offered her lift to school, which she declined. However, now in case complaint Ext.PW1/A is seen the prosecutrix has stated that on 05.05.2004 at about 1:00 pm, when she was going to her home from Chabutra school and, when reached on a turn near Bhamereli respondent met her there. Meaning thereby, that in the complaint Ext.PW1/A, she had stated that occurrence took place when she was going to her house from Chabutra school whereas in complaint Ext.PW1/C, she has stated that she was going to her house from Chabutra School.
32. One of the other issue which arises for consideration is whether on 05.05.2004 was a holiday. If that be so, obviously then there was no question of the prosecutrix going to the school on that date to collect salary. In order to substantiate this plea, respondent placed on record documents Ext. DW3/A to DW3/E and DW1/A. The perusal of these documents show that 05.05.2004 had been shown as holiday being "Budh Purnima whereas 03.05.2004 has been shown as pay day.
33. No doubt, the prosecution has examined PW5 Amar Singh to clear this doubt and, in fact, deposed that he wrongly mentioned Budh Purnima holiday on 05.05.2004 in the school ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 19 record due to election duty he was under stress. But the record shows that the election was on 10.05.2004 and, therefore, the .
version put-forth by him clearly belies the version put-forth by this witness.
34. Therefore, in this background, in view of the conflicting documents coming on record, it is difficult to hold that 05.05.2004 i.e. the date of incident was the working day and, therefore, the prosecution case becomes all the more doubtful.
35. At this stage, we may now advert to the medical evidence that has been produced on record. From MLC of the prosecutrix Ext. PW2/B, no injury was found anywhere on her person. Similarly, as per MLC of the respondent Ext. PW9/A, no injury was found on his person and the obvious reason for this is the long time gap between the date of the alleged incident and the medical examination. However, it may be noticed that PW2 based her opinion Ext.PW2/D on the basis of the chemical examiner report Ext.PW2/C and had opined that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse in the past, which could in no manner be an indicator or point a finger against the respondent.
36. Even the FSL report Ext.PW2/C does not make mention of any semen having been found on vaginal slides, vaginal swab and clothes of the prosecutrix and the reason thereof is obvious on account of time lag. Therefore, even the ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 20 medical evidence does not support much less substantiate the allegations put-forth by the prosecutrix.
.
37. As regards the other witnesses though they have corroborated the case of the prosecutrix to the extent of their role and the part played by them in the investigation, however, their evidence formal in nature and is no way sufficient to connect the respondent with the offence in question.
38. We are not oblivious of the oft quoted passage from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh & ors. (1996) 2 SCC 384, that "A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape.
They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case."
39. However, as discussed above, the evidence led by the prosecution does not even cast an eye of suspicion much less grave suspicion on the respondent for the offence alleged to have been committed by him. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that the judgment of the learned trial court ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP 21 demonstrates that the view found by it is based on the material on record and is otherwise a possible and plausible one. It .
cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by it is not borne out from the record or the same is perverse.
40. The learned trial Court has meticulously discussed the entire evidence on record and it was only after close scrutiny thereof that it has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of the respondent.
41. In view of this, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the respondent rather we have no hesitation to conclude that the story put-forth by the prosecution apparently falls and does not inspire any confidence.
42. The statement of the prosecutrix as also the statements of PW3 and PW4 does not inspire any confidence.
Therefore, while concurring with the findings returned by the learned trial Court, we dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent are ordered to be discharged.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge August 9, 2018 sanjeev ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP