Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 521 (MP)

Rampyari Bai v. State of M. P.

2007-05-02

A.K.GOHIL, SHEELA KHANNA

body2007
ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna in Special Sessions Trial No. 32/06, whereby the respondents No. 2 and 3 have been acquitted from the charges under sections 375 (2) (g) and 352 of IPC read with section 3 (1) (ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Admittedly, the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused. 3. As per the prosecution story, the incident took place on 7.6.2005 while the petitioner/prosecutrix alongwith her mother-in-law Dhaniya Bai (PW 5) had gone to village Bamori from Mungaoli by train for collecting cow-dung cakes. At about 10' O clock, in the noon, when she was collecting cow-dung cakes at the field in the village, it is alleged that accused Bundel Singh came there and caught hold the petitioner and dragged her inside the house. When she cried, accused Shishupal caught hold her mother-in law. It is further alleged that thereafter firstly respondent No. 1 Bundel Singh committed rape with the prosecutrix and secondly respondent No. 2 Shishupa1 also committed rape with the petitioner/prosecutrix. The incident was seen by the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix. After committing rape, both the accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith her mother-in-law went back to their house and the whole incident was narrated by the petitioner to her husband. The report of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix alongwith her husband on 9.6.2005 at P.S. Mungaoli. On 10.6.2005, the prosecutrix was referred for medical examination to Ashoknagar Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Sudha Bhargava (PW 1). After medical examination, her under garments (Petticoat) was seized by the doctor and two slides of vagina swab were prepared, sealed and handed over to the concerning In-charge of Police Station for chemical examination. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. The respondents/accused abjured their guilt and contended to have been falsely implicated. 4. During trial, the petitioner/prosecutrix examined herself as PW 4, mother-in-law Dhaniya Bai as PW 5, and her husband Lallu as PW 6. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. The respondents/accused abjured their guilt and contended to have been falsely implicated. 4. During trial, the petitioner/prosecutrix examined herself as PW 4, mother-in-law Dhaniya Bai as PW 5, and her husband Lallu as PW 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence of the material witnesses particularly petitioner/prosecutrix (PW 4) and Dhaniya Bai (PW 5) found that their statements are full of material omissions, contradictions and exaggerations and held that their evidence is not at all reliable. The evidence of previous enmity between the husband of the petitioner and the accused-persons is also available on record. The trial Court has also found that earlier the prosecutrix had also lodged the report of similar nature against the accused-persons and the case of rape was registered against them but after trial, the accused persons were acquitted. In the cross-examination, the petitioner/prosecutrix (PW 4) has admitted that Sharmila who is wife of her brother-in-law (Dever) Pamma, has also lodged the report against one Hari chamar for committing rape with her alongwith 3-4 persons, when she had gone to meet her husband in the jail. Pamma is also accused in a different rape case which is also pending in the Court of Ashoknagar. Therefore, it was contended that whole family is involved in rape cases. 5. The trial Court has found that the complainant/prosecutrix and the prosecution witnesses have substantially improved their versions on material points. The prosecutrix has deposed that she was threatened by the accused persons on the point of knife and therefore she could not cry. She has also stated that the rape was committed with her for 1 and 1/2 hrs. She stated that she received injuries on her chest, buttock and on the legs and the hands due to broken of bangles and the blood also oozed from the injuries and it fell on the earth. But the lady doctor, who examined the petitioner has not found any such injuries on the body of the petitioner. The evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother-in-law and her husband was demolished by the medical evidence. In the FIR (Ex. P-1) this fact has not been mentioned by the prosecutrix that she received injuries by broken of bangles. The Investigation Officer has also not collected any pieces of bangles from the spot. The evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother-in-law and her husband was demolished by the medical evidence. In the FIR (Ex. P-1) this fact has not been mentioned by the prosecutrix that she received injuries by broken of bangles. The Investigation Officer has also not collected any pieces of bangles from the spot. Therefore, the statement of the prosecutrix is not found corroborated either by medical evidence or by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has also not found any injury on the body of the prosecutrix. 6. Dhaniya Bai (PW 5) has stated that she has not heard any noise from the room where the prosecutrix was subjected to rape and she was under the impression that her daughter-in-law is engaged in collecting cow-dung cakes. The Court has also found that there are material contradictions in the FIR (Ex. P-1) as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix and the finding of the trial Court is that the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of falsehood and away from truth. 7. The trial Court has also found that the prosecution has failed to explain delay in lodging the FIR (Ex. P-1). The statements of the witnesses are not consistent on the point of delay. The prosecutrix has admitted that private complaint was also filed before the Magistrate and the FIR was prepared by the lawyer and the draft of the private complaint was also prepared by the lawyer. The Court has also found that there is no plausible explanation or justification on record that the prosecutrix has gone to collect cow-dung cakes by the train to another village. The prosecution has also suppressed the written report which was submitted by the prosecutrix to S.P. and has not placed the same on record. Regarding the timing of the train, there are conflicting versions of the witnesses and in the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that they both had travelled in the train without ticket. She has not explained as to why she has not narrated the incident to the persons residing in the adjoining homes. Thus, we find that the evidence of the prosecutrix as well as her mother-in-law is totally unreliable and unbelievable. 8. The Court has also considered this aspect of the matter that merely the respondents/accused remained absconding from the date of incident is no ground to hold him guilty. Thus, we find that the evidence of the prosecutrix as well as her mother-in-law is totally unreliable and unbelievable. 8. The Court has also considered this aspect of the matter that merely the respondents/accused remained absconding from the date of incident is no ground to hold him guilty. After the incident, when prosecutrix lived with her husband for three days then merely presence of sperms on her clothes and on slide of vaginal swab carries no meaning unless there is firm evidence of sperms belonging to the respondents. 9. We have considered the entire evidence on record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and found that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. We have also considered the scope of revision. In criminal revision, finding of acquittal cannot be converted into finding of conviction unless it is found that trial Court has committed manifest illegality. So far as acquittal of respondents/ accused is concerned, the evidence of all the three prosecution witnesses is found contrary to each other and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents by producing legal and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, evidence is full of doubts, falsehood and the witnesses have made exaggerated evidence. Evidence of previous enmity is also available on record. Therefore, the trial Court was of the view that false implication of the respondents/accused cannot be ruled out and also we are of the same view. 10. Thus, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we find that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in recording the findings of acquittal. No case is made out for interference in the revision. Consequently, revision fails and is dismissed in limine.