Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nain Singh vs P.P on 4 March, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Appeal No.13/1988 Nain Singh Versus State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 4th March, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.P.R.S. Rajawat for appellant. Mr.J.R. Bijarnia PP for State. <><><> By the Court:
On 8th of August, 1987, the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station, Dag, District Jhalawar stating that the accused appellant committed rape on her while she was alone in the house and when she was made hue and cry, the accused appellant made good his escape. An FIR No.41/1987 was registered for offence under Section 376 & 451 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, the Government Enforcement Agency submitted a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 376 & 451 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, who denied the charges and therefore, was put to trial.
The prosecution examined the prosecutrix (PW1), Kamla Bai (PW2), Ganga Bai (PW3), Radhu (PW4), Bishan (PW5), Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan (PW6), Dr. Ajay Pareek (PW7), Ram Karan (PW8), Banshi Lal (PW9), Jagdish Prasad (PW10) and produced documentary evidence as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15.
The statement of the accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, who stated to have been falsely implicated on account of emnity and he neither entered the house of the prosecutrix nor he committed any offence.
As the prosecution story unfolded, the prosecutrix was declared hostile. The prosecutrix denied any offence in the nature of rape committed on her and only stated that the accused appellant slapped her. The learned trial Court having considered the statements of the witnesses and the documentary evidence brought on record, acquitted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code extending the benefit of doubt. However, the accused appellant has been found guilty for offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
The learned counsel for accused appellant, Shri P.R.S. Rajawat, assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.1987 pleading that there were major contradictions in the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses and further when the prosecutrix could dare to has implicate the accused appellant in a heinous offence by alleging allegations of rape then false implication of the accused appellant for offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be ruled out.
The learned counsel for accused appellant argued that the prosecution has not come out with the true version of the alleged incident and it doubtful, if at all any incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. It has been further argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, keeping in view the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, that the charge against the accused appellant must be proved beyond the reasonable doubt and that the burden of proving the charge lies heavily on the prosecution, have not been satisfied. Inviting the attention of the Court to the statements deposed by Ganga Bai (PW3) and Radhu (PW4), who allegedly witnessed the accused appellant coming out from the house of the prosecutrix, has pointed out the material contradictions.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supporting the impugned judgment and order dated 11th of December, 1987, has submitted that the prosecutrix and other witnesses might not have supported the prosecution story for the charge of rape on the prosecutrix, but there is a consistency in the statements of the prosecutrix (PW1), Ganga Bai (PW3) and Radhu (PW4). He further urged that the defence of false implication of the accused appellant on account of enmity is absolutely baseless since the accused appellant is a member of upper class and caste whereas the prosecutrix is a women of scheduled caste and there could not have been any dispute of any kind relating to land or property between the parties and there is no reason or rhyme for falsely implicating the accused appellant in the crime, but it appears that the prosecutrix being a married women in order to secure her future and status in the society decided not to depose against the accused appellant for commission of an offence of rape on her, which ultimately may be detrimental to her future life and position in the society.
I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
The prosecutrix (PW1) in FIR has made a categoric description about the offence committed by the accused appellant, but in th statement deposed before the trial Court, she has totally denied the commission of offence like rape on her by the accused appellant and stated that the accused appellant abused her and slapped her and when her brother and her aunt (bua) came hearing her hue and cry, the accused appellant made good his escape. The prosecutrix has admitted the fact that the FIR, the site plan (Ex.P2) as well as seizure memo of her cloth (Ex.P3) and the medical examination conducted wherein she was assessed to be aged about 14 to 16 years, bears her thumb impression.
Ganga Bai (PW3) has deposed in her statement before the learned Court below to have seen the accused appellant coming out of the house of the prosecutrix and during the cross-examination, she admitted that the matter has been settled between the parties by the Panchayat. Radhu (PW4) has been consistent on the material fact of hearing seen the accused appellant coming out of the house and abused him and when the accused made good his escape, he say his sister prosecutrix crime and at that time Ganga Bai (PW3) also arrived and on inquiry the prosecutrix disclosed to have been slapped by the accused appellant and during the cross-examination, he has stated to be ignorant of the fact of compromise between the parties. Thus, the evidence available on record to sustain the charge one under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is trustworthy and to that extent, the prosecution has been successful to prove the prosecution case against the accused appellant.
The incident relates back to the year 1987 (8th of August, 1987). The accused appellant was arrested on 13.8.1987 and was released on bail on 28.11.1987 and thus, he has been remained in the judicial custody for three and half months. The accused appellant has faced the trial and was convicted for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment and order dated 11th of December, 2012 as indicated above. The above noted appeal was preferred by the accused appellant in the year 1988. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice will meet if the sentence of the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed maintaining the conviction of the accused appellant for the charge under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the one already undergone. However, the appellant shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousands Only), which is to be paid to the victim i.e., prosecutrix (PW1). If the petitioner does not pay the said compensation amount, he shall undergo the sentence as imposed by the trial Court.
With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. Sunil/PA All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
(Sunil Solanki) P.A.