Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 843 (HP)

State Of H. P. v. Mehar Chand

2010-05-25

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.1998 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala in Sessions Case No. 8-G/VII/98 whereby she acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. On 21.12.1996 a complaint was made to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Dehra by the prosecutrix. In this complaint it was alleged that on 24.2.1996 the accused had entered the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone at home. She was raped by the accused in the kitchen. On the date of occurrence i.e. 24.2.1996 the parents of the prosecutrix were at Amb and came home late at night. The matter was reported to the Pradhan of the Gram Pranchayat Samnoli on the same day and the Pradhan told the father of the prosecutrix that he cannot hear the case and he shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. The Pradhan had also assured that he would take up the matter with the police authorities but no inquiry was conducted. Thereafter on 30.9.1996 father of the prosecutrix moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner for making an inquiry into the matter. Upon this application the police authorities at Dehra called the prosecutrix and her father to the Police Station Dehra in the first week of November, 1996 when the SHO beat the prosecutrix and also obtained her signatures on blank papers. 3. Thereafter, another complaint was made. This complaint was referred to the police and on the basis of this complaint F.I.R. Ext.PW-11/A was lodged. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was got medically examined. After investigation, the accused was charged with having committed the offences aforesaid. The accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Hence the present appeal by the State. 4. It is not in dispute that the complainant belongs to the schedule caste. However, there is no allegation that when she was raped, she was raped because she was a member of the schedule caste. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the opinion that the complaint filed is totally false. 5. According to the version given in complaint Ext.PW-4/A, on the same day itself a complaint was made to the Pradhan of the village. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the opinion that the complaint filed is totally false. 5. According to the version given in complaint Ext.PW-4/A, on the same day itself a complaint was made to the Pradhan of the village. The complaint itself contains a contradiction that the parents of the prosecutrix were at Amb and came home very late at night. When was the complaint made is not clear. It is also not clear whether the complaint was made in writing or oral. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-4. In her statement in Court she stated after she was raped by the accused her brother Tarsem Singh PW-7 came within half an hour. She also stated that her mother came back after half an hour and then her father came at about 6-7 p.m. This is totally contradictory to what was stated in the complaint Ext.PW-4/A in which it was mentioned that the parents came late in the evening. 6. In her testimony in Court the prosecutrix stated that in the evening the Pradhan alongwith four brothers of the accused came to their house and assured her that the matter would be compromised. This fact is not stated in the complaint Ext.PW-4/A. The prosecutrix also stated in Court that when for 6-7 days nothing happened her brother went to the Pradhan and he was informed by the Pradhan that an application has been given to the Deputy Commissioner but nothing had been heard so far. According to the prosecutrix after 2-3 months her father sent an application to the Deputy Commissioner himself. This fact is also totally contradictory to the version given in Ext.PW-4/A in which it is mentioned that the application was moved to the Deputy Commissioner on 30.9.1996, i.e. more than 7 months and not 2-3 months after the incident. This witness in cross-examination admitted that her brother had lodged a report with the police that her elder sister had been kidnapped by some persons. Some boys were apprehended and the matter was compromised by her brother and father with the said persons after they had taken money from the said persons. She, however, was not clear how much money was taken. 7. Some boys were apprehended and the matter was compromised by her brother and father with the said persons after they had taken money from the said persons. She, however, was not clear how much money was taken. 7. The learned trial Court disbelieved the statements of the prosecutrix, her parents and the brother mainly on the ground of the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. Admittedly the complaint was made about 10 months after the alleged incident. The prosecution made no attempt to examine the Pradhan to prove whether any complaint was made before him or not. Even the alleged complaint made to the Deputy Commissioner has not been proved on record. According to the prosecutrix after the complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner they were summoned to the Police Station. This means that the Deputy Commissioner must have ear-marked the complaint to the SDM or to the police. Any complaint made to the office of the Deputy Commissioner would have been diarized. No effort has been made to prove that such a complaint was ever filed with the Deputy Commissioner. Thus there is no explanation whatsoever to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. 8. The medical evidence becomes meaningless because the prosecutrix was examined more than 10 months after the alleged incident and therefore, we need not refer to the same. Even otherwise, the prosecutrix herself has admitted that in a matter of abduction relating to her sister the matter was compromised after taking some money. Taking all these factors into consideration, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. There is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.