Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) It was sagaciously contended that though prosecution has examined seven witnesses, yet, prosecution case is based on the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW2 i.e. complainant. It was contended that no reliance can be placed on her deposition because she made an attempt to set up altogether a new case during her deposition, which is not permissible in a criminal trial. It was further contended that prosecution has set up a case that when complainant got up, she saw that her daughter was in the lap of accused and finger of accused was at the vagina of her daughter but in her deposition, she deposed that when she got up, State Vs. Dashrath Sharma accused was sitting and her daughter was at the penis of accused, which is not the prosecution case. It was further contended that there are other several material contradictions between the testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution as according to the prosecution version accused was wearing pant and shirt at the time of alleged incident whereas PW2 deposed that accused was wearing only lungi and he was not even wearing underwear. It was astutely contended that complainant had made substantial improvements in her deposition which affect the core of prosecution case, thus, no reliance can be placed on her testimony. It was further argued that prosecution failed to produce any other cogent evidence to prove the guilt of accused.

37. Now coming to the remaining points i.e. point (E), (F) and (G).

38. Prosecution has set up a case through complaint Ex. PW2/B that complainant got up and saw that victim was in the lap of accused and his finger was at her vagina, consequently, she had snatched the victim from accused and gave a push to the accused due to which accused fell down. But when PW2 graced the witness box, she did not support the prosecution case by deposing that when she got up, she saw that lungi of accused was down and her daughter was at his penis and further deposed that accused was not wearing any underwear. During cross-examination conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, PW2 admitted that when she got up her daughter was in the lap of accused and finger of State Vs. Dashrath Sharma accused was at her sho-sho (vagina) but surprisingly learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not contradict PW2 to her statement that victim was at the penis of accused. In other words, the prosecution made an attempt to set up a new case that the victim was at the penis of accused as well as finger of accused was also at the vagina of victim. It is pertinent to state that in a criminal trial, it is the duty of prosecution to inform the accused about the nature of allegation, so that accused can defend himself. Prosecution cannot aback the accused by setting up a new case first time in the Court by alleging that victim was also at the penis of accused. Rather by deposing so, PW2 made the prosecution case doubtful even to the extent that finger of the accused was at the vagina of victim. It is pertinent to state that the victim cannot be at the penis of accused, if the finger of the accused was at her vagina.

42. If accused was wearing pant and shirt as deposed by PW6 and PW7, it further casts a doubt over the testimony of PW2 that victim was at the penis of the accused.

43. In order to justify lapses on her part, PW2 took the plea that she did not tell the police that victim was at the penis of accused because all public persons told her that her daughter would be medically examined and she would be died during the medical examination. But during her cross-examination, she admitted that she had given birth to five children, thus she knew very well that no one can die by medical examination. Though she deposed that Shamim and Binu besides other passers by told her about the same, yet no such person was brought in the witness box to corroborate her version. In these circumstances, it is seldom to rely on her version. Further, this shows that she had made a statement before the police after due deliberation and consultation with her well-wishers and State Vs. Dashrath Sharma even then she did not tell true facts before the police. This again casts doubt over her deposition.

44. Now coming to the issue in which position accused was, when PW2 got up.

45. PW2 in her cross-examination deposed that accused was sitting when she got up and at that time she saw that victim was at his penis. But again her deposition does not get any support from the investigating officer (PW7) who categorically deposed that as per the allegations levelled by the complainant, accused was in a standing position. It is pertinent to state that in her complaint Ex. PW2/A, complainant alleged that she snatched the victim and gave a push to the accused, due to which accused fell down. This shows that in her complaint, complainant intended to say that accused was in a standing position. Thus, it appears that PW2 deliberately twisted the facts in her deposition by saying that accused was in a sitting position to justify her version that victim was at the penis of accused. This further casts a doubt over her deposition.