Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

According to the prosecution story, on 3.6.1999, at about 4.00/5.00 a.m. when prosecutrix was alone in her house then appellant came inside her house and raped her against her wish whereas defence version of the appellant was that there was previous enmity amongst the parties and due to previous enmity appellant was falsely implicated in this case. Now the question is whether the prosecution story inspires confidence or defence version is more probable then the prosecution story.

First submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that there was previous enmity amongst the parties and due to previous enmity he was falsely implicated in this case. Ex. D-1 is the copy of complaint dated 4.2.1999, qua the occurrence dated 26.1.1999. Complaint was filed by Urmila wife of Lakhan Lal, brother of the appellant against Jai Ram, brother of Vikram. Complaint was under

Sections 354/452/506 IPC, but no evidence on the file that before 3.6.1999, Jai Ram was served in the complaint or had the notice of the complaint filed by Urmila. Ex. D-2 is the photocopy of the complaint dated 22.5.1999, filed by Lakhmi S/o Gauri Shankar, qua the occurrence dated 10.5.1999. Complaint was against Nathi and his sons but prosecutrix was not one of the accused. Sehdev-appellant was the eye-witness in both the complaints Ex. D-1 and D-2 but again no evidence on the file that on the day of occurrence i.e. 3.6.1999, prosecutrix or her husband had the notice of the complaints filed by Lakhmi or Urmila. Ex. D-3 is the photocopy of rapat No.24 dated 6.1.1999. Rapat was recorded in view of the statement of Lakhan Lal under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Accused were Vikram, Ompal and others. Accused were arrested on 6.1.1999, under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Suppose on 3.6.1999, complainant party had the notice of the complaints Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 and security proceedings were initiated against the complainant party in view of rapat No.24, then it means that there was enmity amongst the parties. Old enmity was double edged weapon. Appellant had the motive to commit the crime because on 26.1.1999, Jai Ram made an effort to outrage the modesty of Urmila.

Second allegation is that injuries were caused to Lakhmi S/o Gauri Shankar by Nathi, Jai Ram, Ompal, Madan, Vikram and Khanna but copy of the MLR not on the file to show how many injuries were caused or whether the injuries can be self-suffered or self-inflicted. Filing of different complaints rather show that appellant had motive to commit the crime. On the other hand no doubt due to previous enmity there was possibility of false implication of the appellant but there was no idea to involve the prosecutrix. If the complainant party had the intention to implicate the appellant then a criminal case could easily be got registered against the appellant on the allegation that appellant has stolen some household article or attempted to cause injuries to any of the family member of the complainant party. If the intention of the complainant party was to implicate the opposite party then Lakhan Lal should have been named as accused because wife of Lakhan Lal had filed complaint against Jai Ram or Lakhmi S/o Gauri Shankar, because he had filed complaint against Nathi and others. When there was a previous enmity amongst the parties then due to previous enmity prosecution story was not to be ignored. Previous enmity was one of the suspicious circumstance to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution.

Occurrence is dated 3.6.1999 and on the same day in view of the written complaint Ex. PD, FIR Ex. PD/1 was registered against the appellant. Appellant was arrested on 30.6.1999. Till today no complaint in writing to any authority that case is false. In case on 3.6.1999, appellant had not gone to the house of the prosecutrix and had not raped the prosecutrix and was falsely named due to previous enmity then appellant could easily sent complaints to different authorities but till today no complaint to any authority. No application was given to the Panchayat that case is false. There was no resolution by the Panchayat regarding false implication. If due to previous enmity and to settle the dispute, complainant party was directed to leave the village and to stay in village Unchagaon and there was no occurrence as per prosecution story then Panchayat could easily pass a resolution that case is false. Absence of the appellant from his house till his arrest on 30.6.1999, shows that prosecution story inspires confidence. Although the appellant was presumed to be innocent unless the guilty is proved. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then did not state a word that due to previous enmity he was falsely implicated in this case or as per resolution by the Panchayat complainant party was directed to leave the village and stay at village Unchagaon.