Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2022 (RAJ)

Dheer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-07

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2010, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 456 and 376 IPC, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Shortly, the facts of the case are that on 28.06.2009, the respondent No.2, Smt. Kamla Devi, lodged a report at Police Station Dantaramgarh against the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, the Police registered a FIR, FIR No.105/2009, for offences under Sections 456 and 354 IPC and commenced investigation. But, after a thorough investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 456 and 376 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. From where, the case was finally committed to the learned Judge for framing of the charges and for trial. Vide order dated 27.9.2010, the learned Judge framed the charges for offences under Sections 456 and 376 IPC against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in the FIR, the prosecutrix did not allege the commission of rape. In fact, according to her, the petitioner had merely entered into her room and outraged her modesty. Even in her initial statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she did not claim that she was ravished by the petitioner. It is only after a lapse of eight months that in her supplementary statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she alleges that she had been ravished by the petitioner. Secondly, the prosecutrix's statement is not corroborated by the medical report. According to the medical report, there are no signs of violence on her body. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the offence under Section 376 IPC has not been made out. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of Premiya @ Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and on the case of Lalliram & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 69 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that the prosecutrix happens to be an illiterate and widow women, who had gone in the dead of the night along with her family members to the Police Station to lodge a report. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 69 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that the prosecutrix happens to be an illiterate and widow women, who had gone in the dead of the night along with her family members to the Police Station to lodge a report. Despite her request to the Police that they should register a case of rape, the Police did not do so. Therefore, on the next day, on 29.6.2009, she filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, wherein she had clearly stated that despite her request, the Police did not register a case for rape. In fact, she also alleged that the Police had threatened her that in case she were to register a case of rape, they would falsely implicated her. In her supplementary statement, she has narrated this fact and has explained the discrepancy which exists between her initial statement, and the supplementary one. According to her, it is due to the fault of the Police. Secondly, the prosecutrix happens to be the star witness of the prosecution. Even if she is not corroborated by the medical evidence, at this juncture, the same cannot dilute the veracity of her statement. Thirdly, at the time of framing of the charge, the learned Judge is not expected to meticulously examine the evidence. In fact, he is required merely to see whether a strong prima facie case does exist against the accused-person or not ? 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order as well as the charge-sheet. 6. It is true that the FIR does not contain any allegation against the petitioner for having committed an offence under Section 376 IPC. However, the prosecutrix in her supplementary statement has explained the reason why the FIR has not been recorded properly. In fact, immediately after recording of the FIR on 28.6.2009, on 29.6.2009, she had complained to the S.P. clearly pointing out that the Police has not recorded the FIR and her statement correctly. According to her, it was not merely a case of outraging her modesty, but a rape had been committed by the petitioner. In her supplementary statement, she has also clearly stated that it is only after she made a complaint to the S.P., that the Police has recorded the correct version of her story. According to her, it was not merely a case of outraging her modesty, but a rape had been committed by the petitioner. In her supplementary statement, she has also clearly stated that it is only after she made a complaint to the S.P., that the Police has recorded the correct version of her story. Thus, prima facie there seems to be a strong case against the petitioner. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that at the time of framing of the charge, the learned Judge is concerned only with the existence of a strong prima facie case against the accused. At the initial stage, he is not permitted to meticulously examine and to deal with the contradictions which may or may not exist on record. 8. Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix is the star witness of the prosecution. In case of rape the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that her testimony should be taken as the gospel truth. Thus, at the initial stage even if her statement is not corroborated by the medical evidence, it will not dilute the veracity of her statement. Moreover, the veracity of the statement would have to be seen in light of the cross-examination to which she may be subjected to during the trial. Furthermore, the medical evidence is only a corroborative piece of evidence and is not a substantial piece of evidence. Therefore, at the initial stage of framing of the charge, the court is concerned merely with the substantial piece of evidence rather than the corroborative one. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the statement of the prosecutrix is doubtful as it is not being corroborated by the medical evidence, is without merit. 9. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Premiya @ Prem Prakash (Supra) to raise the contention that in case there are no injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix, the offence under Section 376 IPC should be reduced to an offence under Section 354 IPC i.e. merely for outraging the modesty. However, the said case deals with a case where the conviction was for under Section 376 IPC. However, in the the present case the prosecution is yet to lead its evidence to make out its case. However, the said case deals with a case where the conviction was for under Section 376 IPC. However, in the the present case the prosecution is yet to lead its evidence to make out its case. The absence of an injury does not lead to an axiomatic inference that "no rape has been committed upon the prosecutrix." For, Section 376 IPC does not require the presence of an injury, as mere penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape. Thus, the case of Premiya @ Prem Prakash (Supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 10. Similarly, the case of Lalliram & Anr. (Supra) is a case of gang rape, whereas the present case is not a case of gang rape. Moreover, the said case also deals with a conviction, wheres presently we are concerned merely with the framing of the charge. In the said case the Apex Court had observed that "where the testimony of prosecutrix is found to be self-contradictory and also is inconsistent with the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses as well as the medical evidence, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of her version". But such an observation is presently inapplicable as the prosecution is yet to lead its evidence. 11. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. 12. However, by way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made by this Court, mentioned above, should not influence the final decision of the trial court. The trial court is duty bound to objectively assess the evidence which would be produced before it both by the prosecution as well as by the defence.Revision dismissed.