Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 307 (RAJ)

Saitana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2002-02-06

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is filed by the accused Saitana Ram, against the order of conviction dated 20.4.91, passed in respect of the appellant Saitana Ram by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1989, State v. Saitana Ram , under Section 376 of the IPC. 2. According to the FIR Ex.P/1, PW-1 Anopa Ram and his wife PW-4 Smt. Shanti were working in their field and at about 9 PM while Shanti was returning to her house from the agricultural field, the accused caught hold of her and committed rape in a watercourse. She raised hue and cry and her husband rushed to the spot. The accused took to his heels and the FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged at Police Station, Bajju, by Smt. Shanti and her husband Anopa Ram. The case under section 376 of the IPC was registered and ultimately a challan was filed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution side examined 7 witnesses in support of its case. DW-1 Tulsi Das was examined in defence. He has stated to the effect that prior to the incident in question the 'Panchayat' of the village was was convened in respect of a complaint by the accused to the effect that Anopa Ram was in the habit of grazing his cattle in the field of the accused and when the latter objected, Anopa Ram gave him a severe beating. The `Panchayat' found substance in the complaint and gave a judgment to the effect that Anopa Ram will compensate the accused by delivering 4 Kg. `Ghee' to him. According to the witness, after this judgment of the `Panchayat' he learnt that the accused was implicated by Anopa Ram in a case of rape. 4. The learned trial court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment dated 20.4.91 whereby the appellant has been found guilty under section 376 of the IPC and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and for non - payment of fine additional imprisonment for six months. It is not made clear as to whether the additional imprisonment of six months would be the simple or rigorous in nature. Against this judgment the convict Saitana Ram has come in appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. It is not made clear as to whether the additional imprisonment of six months would be the simple or rigorous in nature. Against this judgment the convict Saitana Ram has come in appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence and has brought to my notice various infirmities which have come in the prosecution evidence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has described the contradictions as minor and has supported the conclusions drawn by the trial court. 6. From the evidence, which has come on record I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court are not sustainable. The testimony of PW-4 Shantf, PW-1 Anopa Ram and PW-2 Manohar Lal does not inspire confidence. Anopa Ram and Manohar Lal are brothers and Shanti is the wife of Anopa Ram. There is thus no independent corroboration of the story. 7. PW-1 Anopa Ram and PW-2 Manohar Lal have stated to the effect that the incident took place between 9 to 10 PM on 16.9.88, whereas according to Smt. Shanti the incident took place at 4 AM on 17.9.88. This is a major contradiction and is fatal for the credibility of the prosecution story. 8. Further, from the FIR Ex.P/1 and from the testimony of PW-1 Anopa Ram and PW-2 Manohar Lal it comes out that while Shanti was returning to another field she was intercepted by accused and was criminally assaulted. However, PW-4 Shanti states that at the time of the incident she was asleep in her hut and the rape was committed inside the hut. Needless to say that such type of contradictions cannot be termed as minor. Moreover, PW-4 Smt. Shanti does not say, in so many words, that the sexual act actually took place. She does not say that there was any penetration. She only states that some bad thing was done to her by the accused. During the cross - examination, she changes the version and states that initially she was pushed in the watercourse and after her fall, the bad thing was not done to her immediately. She states that on hour after her fall, the incident took place. She only states that some bad thing was done to her by the accused. During the cross - examination, she changes the version and states that initially she was pushed in the watercourse and after her fall, the bad thing was not done to her immediately. She states that on hour after her fall, the incident took place. She admits that she was more powerful physically than the accused but at the same time she admits that neither physically nor orally she put up any resistance. 9. The medical evidence also does not help the prosecution side. Dr. PN. Mathur (PW-3) has stated that no injuries were found on the person of Smt. Shanti and there was no evidence of any resistance on her part. Dr. Mathur has stated that he was not able to opine that any rape was committed with Smt. Shanti. PW-6 Suresh Kumar Pandey is the person who examined the appellant Saitana Ram after his arrest. He has stated that although the accused was competent enough to perform a sex act but he found that there was no evidence on the basis of which it could be concluded or inferred that any sexual act was performed by the accused in the recent past. Smt. Shanti and her husband Anopa Ram have deposed to the effect that during the resistance lot many injuries were received by Smt. Shanti, Smt. Shanti has stated that 10 to 15 injuries were visible on her person which were shown to the Doctor who examined her. According to her there were scratches on her breast and around the private parts. However, as pointed out earlier from the testimony of Dr. Mathur it is clear that there was no injury, worth the name, on the person of Smt. Shanti when she was examined. It is, thus, clear that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable. During the cross - examination of Anopa Ram it was suggested to him that he quarrelled with the accused in respect of which the Panchayat was convened and he was ordered to deliver 4 kg. `Ghee' to the accused as a measure of punishment. Instead of denying, his response was that he does not remember. 10. I find that PW-1 Anopa Ram as well as PW-4 Smt. Shanti are highly unbelievable as witnesses and they have made statements in the court which were false to their knowledge. 11. `Ghee' to the accused as a measure of punishment. Instead of denying, his response was that he does not remember. 10. I find that PW-1 Anopa Ram as well as PW-4 Smt. Shanti are highly unbelievable as witnesses and they have made statements in the court which were false to their knowledge. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant Saitana Ram is acquitted of the charge. He will be entitled to get back the amount of fine, in case, it has been deposited by him.Appeal allowed. *******