Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1016 (HP)

Lal Singh alias Rinaka v. State of H. P.

2013-12-11

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
Judgment : Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against his conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’) and Section 3(I)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 wherein the accused has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the event of fine being paid, this amount is to be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix was pursuing Computer Course at Daulatpur Chwok in 2007-2008. The accused was running a bakery shop and one Anil had introduced the prosecutrix to him. The further case of the prosecution is that both the prosecutrix and the accused became friendly and that during the period from 27.7.2009 to 26.4.2011 they developed physical intimacy. The accused kept on visiting the prosecutrix who was called to the fields near her house which continued till February, 2011. On every occasion they had sexual relations. The accused was threatening her that he would disclose these facts to his friends and also stated that in case she disclosed their relationship to anybody, he would not marry her. He purchased three mobile Sims retaining one with him and other two were handed over to the prosecutrix. In March, 2011, the prosecutrix suspected that she was pregnant because she had missed her regular periods when the accused took her urine sample which purportedly proved positive for pregnancy. The accused had assured her that he would marry her and there was no cause for worry. On 15.4.2011 the accused asked the prosecutrix to take some medicines assuring her that those were for her benefit. On the next day, the prosecutrix informed her Bhabhi about the entire episode, when the accused refused to marry her saying that she do not belong to his caste. On 17.4.2011, she consumed the medicines given to her. She vomited with some blood and fell unconscious. She was taken to hospital at Daulatpur where Dr.Sandeep Narula treated her and obtained gastric lavage fluid which was handed over to the police in a sealed bottle. On 17.4.2011, she consumed the medicines given to her. She vomited with some blood and fell unconscious. She was taken to hospital at Daulatpur where Dr.Sandeep Narula treated her and obtained gastric lavage fluid which was handed over to the police in a sealed bottle. Thereafter, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where her urine sample was found positive for her pregnancy whereupon she disclosed the name of the accused as the person whose fetus she was carrying. Further case of the prosecution is that Sumit, cousin brother of prosecutrix, spoke to the family of the accused for ceremonising the marriage of the prosecutrix with accused, but brother of accused refused and instead offered Rs.two lacs and told him that she could be married with someone else. The prosecution case is that she was diagnosed for cellphos poisoning and MLC was issued accordingly. 3. On 24.4.2011 a Panchayat was convened where the prosecutrix narrated the entire story, but the accused refused any relationship with the prosecutrix and proclaimed before the Panchayat that she belongs to lower caste; as such he was not prepared to marry her. It is thereafter that an application was filed before the police on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-20/A was recorded. The prosecutrix was medically examined and MLC Ex.PW-3/B was issued. The police obtained the call details of the prosecutrix and the accused Ex.PW- 14/A to Ex.PW-14/D, Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B. 4. In all 27 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. On conclusion, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused on the evidence of these witnesses. I am not replicating the evidence as assessed by the learned trial Court but only advert to the crucial evidence on record to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. A number of grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the appellant to urge that the evidence on record does not establish the offence of rape and that there was no false pretence for marriage on which basis the accused was having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 5. PW-3 Dr.Neenu Narula, who was posted as Medical Officer in CHC Daulatpur Chowk, stated that on 27th April, 2011, the police moved an application Ex.PW-3/A for medical examination of the prosecutrix. It was stated that she had been subjected to repeated intercourse by someone. The prosecutrix stated that she had a history of amenorrhea since 4.2.2011. 5. PW-3 Dr.Neenu Narula, who was posted as Medical Officer in CHC Daulatpur Chowk, stated that on 27th April, 2011, the police moved an application Ex.PW-3/A for medical examination of the prosecutrix. It was stated that she had been subjected to repeated intercourse by someone. The prosecutrix stated that she had a history of amenorrhea since 4.2.2011. She (prosecutrix) found the pregnancy test positive which was conducted at her home and she was given some abortifacient by a boy on 15.4.2011 which she consumed on 17.4.2011 after that she had spotting once or twice or blood stained discharge. There was no injury on any part of the body. She opined that on examination, the prosecutrix has been subjected to sexual intercourse. Presence of pregnancy could not be ruled out for which she was referred to Regional Hospital, Una to the radiologist for ultrasonography to rule out pregnancy. She proved on record Ex.PW-3/B MLC of the prosecutrix. She then states that after the ultrasonography report Ex.PW-3/C was received from the radiologist, the uterus and adnexa were normal in size and shape and no gestational sac or fetus was seen. She then stated that the muddy blood stained swab could be either due to menstrual bleeding or abortive bleeding. In cross-examination she admits that she (prosecutrix) was not pregnant at the time of examination. 6. PW-26 Dr.Arjun Datt Lau, Senior Resident Internal Medicines, PGI, Chandigarh, stated that the prosecutrix was brought to PGI on 17.4.2011 at 10.04 A.M., which was recorded in the admission card. The provisional diagnosis was cellphos poisoning. She was managed conservatively with supportive care and was discharged in a stable condition on 19.4.2011. On the request of the police, Medico Legal case summary Ex.PW-26/A was signed and issued by him. In crossexamination he says that no chemical examination for the presence of aluminum phosphate was carried out at PGI, however, the same was found on clinical examination. 7. PW-16 Dr.Sandeep Narula, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Daulatpur Chowk, stated that on 17.4.2011 he examined the prosecutrix who was brought by the police with the alleged history of consuming poison. He treated her for “gastric lavage” and the fluid was taken out and was handed over to the police in a sealed bottle. MLC Ex.PW-16/B was issued by him. 7. PW-16 Dr.Sandeep Narula, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Daulatpur Chowk, stated that on 17.4.2011 he examined the prosecutrix who was brought by the police with the alleged history of consuming poison. He treated her for “gastric lavage” and the fluid was taken out and was handed over to the police in a sealed bottle. MLC Ex.PW-16/B was issued by him. In his cross-examination he has stated that “I did not examine the lavage fluid to ascertain whether the same contained poison or not. I could not find apparent symptoms of consumption of poison.” At this juncture, it would be appropriate if Ex.PW-3/A, application filed by the police, is considered, wherein an opinion from the doctor has been sought as to whether sexual intercourse had been committed on the prosecutrix or whether any abortion had been attempted or not. The doctor states that there is no pregnancy present. This examination was carried out at Civil Hospital, Daulatpur Chowk. On 27.4.2011 Ex.PW-3/B, which is the Medico Legal Certificate, had been issued by this witness stating that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse by “someone”. She also notes that there is no injury on any part of the body. On examination, vide Ex.PW-3/B, which is recorded by Dr.Neenu Narula, PW-3, she records:- "She is MBMN, conscious, co-operative and well oriented to TPP. She gives h/o amenorrhea since 4.2.2011, after that on finding pregnancy test `+ve’ (done at home) she was given some medicine (abortifacient) by the boy on 15.4.2011 for which she gives h/o consuming on 17.4.11. After that she had spotting once or twice and bld. Stained discharge. O/E: There is no injury on any part of the body. P/V: 2 fingers could be introduced into the vagina with ease. Findings : ut.is retroverted, slightly bulky and size was not equivalent to period of amenorrhea. 2 vaginal swabs (muddy) [blood stained] were taken and enclosed/sealed in a vial and handed over to the police. OPINION: As per her P/V examn., she has been subjected to sexual intercourse before. Presence of pregenancy (intact or retained products) can not be ruled out for which she is referred to RH Una to the Radiologist for USG to r/o pregnancy if there of any period or retained products.” 8. Ex.PW-3/C is the ultrasonography report which does not confirm that the prosecutrix was pregnant. Presence of pregenancy (intact or retained products) can not be ruled out for which she is referred to RH Una to the Radiologist for USG to r/o pregnancy if there of any period or retained products.” 8. Ex.PW-3/C is the ultrasonography report which does not confirm that the prosecutrix was pregnant. Ex.PW-16/B, which is the report of Medical Examination of the prosecutrix for consumption of poison, does not indicate any administration of the poison, as alleged. Ex.PW-26/A report of the MLC issued by the PGI certifying that the prosecutrix was admitted on 17.4.2011 and discharged on 19.4.2011. She had been brought to the hospital by Satish Kumar, who was in the Computer Centre in this Hospital and Jagdish Chand, who is the uncle of the prosecutrix. The injury sustained by her is prescribed as `Celphos Poisoning’. 9. The prosecutrix, who appeared as PW-17, stated that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste and that accused Rianka (Lal Singh) had intercourse with her on 27th July, 2009 when a party had been arranged by him on her birthday at “My Choice Hotel” at Daulatpur. She had gone to this party accompanied by her friend Sonu, 2-3 friends of the accused were also present there. She states that she was on fasting on that day and therefore she did not have any lunch, but the accused offered her a cold drink which she consumed after that she felt giddy and wanted to vomit for which she went to the washroom on the first storey. Thereafter, the accused called her to a room and told her that his brother and Bhabhi were waiting to speak to her, but she did not find anyone in the room. He bolted the room, when she tried to leave. When she asked him as to why nobody was there, he admitted that none was present and he had called her only to sit with her and talk to her for sometime. She stated that at that time she felt giddy. The accused had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She told him that she would complain about this fact to his parents, but he stopped her from doing so and started swearing in the name of his dead father that he would marry her and would send the proposal to her family through his brother. The accused had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She told him that she would complain about this fact to his parents, but he stopped her from doing so and started swearing in the name of his dead father that he would marry her and would send the proposal to her family through his brother. She did not meet him thereafter for about 5-6 months, but had talked to him on telephone. She states that he again started coming to meet her in the fields near her house usually on Sunday. This continued till February, 2011. Almost on every visit the accused had intimate sexual relations with her despite the fact that she resisted him. According to her, this was under the threat that in case she refused to comply with this demand, he would disclose the initial incident to his friends and would get married somewhere else. In 2010, brother of the accused came to know about their relationship and told her that she should not promote the relationship any further. She did not have any menstruation period in the month of March, 2011 and she disclosed this fact to the accused who told her that he will get her urine sample tested, which sample, according to him, proved positive for pregnancy. He assured her that there is no need to worry since he would marry her and kept talking to her on the mobile. On 15.4.2011 he came to meet her in the fields near her house and gave her some medicines and powder wrapped in a paper and asked her to consume it. On 16.11.2011, she spoke to him on the phone and informed him that she had narrated the entire incident to her cousin Bhabhi Trisha. He refused to marry her. On 17.11.2011, her cousin brother Sumit and his wife Trisha had come to their house. She states that she was not well and therefore consumed the medicines given to her by the accused. Thereafter, she went to vomit in the fields which contained some blood and she became unconscious. She was taken to Daulatpur Hospital. She says that a doctor and policeman had sprinkled water on her face and told her that what she had consumed. She told that she had consumed some medicines given by the accused. She was then taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where she regained consciousness on the 18th. She was taken to Daulatpur Hospital. She says that a doctor and policeman had sprinkled water on her face and told her that what she had consumed. She told that she had consumed some medicines given by the accused. She was then taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where she regained consciousness on the 18th. More importantly what she states is that doctor at PGI told her that her urine sample had tested positive for pregnancy, but there could be no certainty about it unless ultrasonography is carried out. The doctors asked her as to whose fetus she was carrying then she named the accused. She then states that doctors asked her to call this person as they opined that she will not survive for more than half an hour. Her brother Sumit telephoned the accused, but the brother of the accused attended the phone and refused to come to PGI. She says that the poison had spread throughout her body. She says that the doctors of PGI had carried out an ultra sound examination, but could not locate any fetus, therefore she was discharged on 19th. On 24th April, 2011, a Panchayat was convened which was attended by her and she disclosed the entire facts to the Panchayat, but the accused refused to marry her and stated that she belongs to a lower caste and it is in these circumstances, he did not wish to marry her. She admits that the sims used were issued in her name. 10. Shri Shamsher Singh PW-1, father of the prosecutrix, states that his daughter had consumed some medicines in his house and was found in a semiconscious condition in the fields. She was crying. She was taken to CHC, Daulatpur and he accompanied her to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment where she was treated for two days. Satish (cousin of this witness) worked as Computer Operator at PGI. He stated that the prosecutrix was pregnant. After returned from PGI he was informed by his wife that the prosecutrix was pregnant for which Lal Singh (accused) was responsible. She also informed me that both the prosecutrix and the accused had been maintaining physical intimacy. After his return from PGI, a Panchayat was convened where the accused denied any relationship with the prosecutrix and refused to marry her for the reason that the accused belonged to the Rajput caste and the prosecutrix was of Scheduled Caste. She also informed me that both the prosecutrix and the accused had been maintaining physical intimacy. After his return from PGI, a Panchayat was convened where the accused denied any relationship with the prosecutrix and refused to marry her for the reason that the accused belonged to the Rajput caste and the prosecutrix was of Scheduled Caste. He admitted that the house of the accused is far away from his house as in between his house and that of the house of the accused there are many residential houses. He was not aware that his daughter was coming late from the Computer Course which she had joined. 11. PW-2 Smt.Karmo, Devi mother of the prosecutrix, states that she (prosecutrix) fell ill and was found in an unconscious state in the fields near their house at about 4.00 P.M. and then she was taken to CHC Daulatpur Chwok from where she was referred to PGI for treatment. It is after her return from PGI she informed her that the accused was having physical intimacy with her for the last about two years on the pretext that he would marry her. Both the prosecutrix and the accused were having physical intimacy in the fields near her house, she (prosecutrix) was having three months pregnancy and a Panchayat meeting was convened. She states that in this meeting the family of the accused told her that she could do what she likes and the accused denied the physical intimacy with her daughter. The accused denied any sexual activity with the prosecutrix. 12. PW-4 Dharampal is an important witness as he says that he is owner of the premises where the first act of sexual contact was supposed to have been committed by the accused. He states that he runs a Fast Food Corner at Daulatpur Chowk which consists of two storeys. On the upper storey one room is used by him as store and other by the staff of his shop. There is a separate toilet in the upper storey. The accused runs a bakery shop in Daulatpur Chowk and students frequently visit his shop for eatables. They used the toilet of the upper storey. One room is used by him as the store and the other by the staff of the shop. In his room there is a double bed. He states that the police came there about 6/7 months back. They used the toilet of the upper storey. One room is used by him as the store and the other by the staff of the shop. In his room there is a double bed. He states that the police came there about 6/7 months back. He was crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor, as he had been declared hostile, he denied every suggestion that the accused and the prosecutrix ever had sexual intercourse in the upper storey of his premises. He admits that he is having business dealing with the accused for the last 4-5 years and on further cross-examination on behalf of the accused he states that the hall on the upper storey of his shop is used for organizing functions etc. A Government College and two schools are situated near his shop. 13. PW-5 Anil Kumar, who is Teacher in H.P.I.T Computer Centre at Daulatpur Chowk, was declared hostile, when he stated that he does not know anything about the case. In cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he stated that the accused never sent any proposal of friendship or marriage through him to the prosecutrix nor was he aware as to whether prosecutrix was familiar with the accused. There were about 120 students under the training in the Computer Centre which remained open from 9.00 to 5.00 during the day time. The prosecutrix was supposed to attend the course from 1.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. in batch of 20 students. 14. Evidence of PW-7 Ved Parkash would be relevant and important as he was produced by the prosecution to establish that a Panchayat was convened. He states that he was Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dangoh Khas and no Panchayat was convened by him. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined when he states that on 24.4.2011 Shamsher Singh, PW-1 father of the prosecutrix, told him that he wanted to speak to him about his daughter and the accused. He denied the suggestion that Shamsher Singh had called him near the pond of the village. He says that many persons had gathered there. Lal Singh accused as also the prosecutrix were also present there with her family. He did not hear anything about Shamsher Singh for requesting the accused to marry his daughter. He denied the suggestion that Shamsher Singh had called him near the pond of the village. He says that many persons had gathered there. Lal Singh accused as also the prosecutrix were also present there with her family. He did not hear anything about Shamsher Singh for requesting the accused to marry his daughter. He denied any knowledge as to whether any talk or settlement took place or that the accused stated that he would not marry the prosecutrix because she belongs to the Scheduled Caste. He says that there were some arguments between the parties, but he does not know what transpired. 15. PW-9 Sunita was declared hostile as she denied any knowledge of the case. Nothing has been elicited from her cross-examination. 16. PW-14 Davinder Verma, Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited was produced to prove the call details of mobile phone No.9816565564 issued to Ashok Kumar son of Arjan Singh, resident of village Dangoh as also the mobile number of the prosecutrix. He admitted that he did not know who called from these numbers and who received. To similar effect is the statement of Shri Shashi Kant Verma, Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited. 17. PW-19 Dr.Surender Kumar Pal, Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Dharamshala, analyzed the parcel received containing vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix stating that they contained human blood, no semen was detected, but he did not ascertain the blood group of the blood found on these vaginal swabs. 18. This is the entirety of the evidence. Last but not least, I consider the statement of PW-22 Trisha Devi wife of Shri Sumit Kumar. She says that the prosecutrix is her sister-in-law. The father of the prosecutrix PW-1 Shamsher Singh is their maternal uncle of her husband. About two months before the case was registered, the prosecutrix had told her that Rianka (accused) wanted to marry her and that on 17th (two years ago from the date when she deposed), the prosecutrix telephoned her and told her to speak with her father as she wanted to marry the accused. She alongwith her husband came to the house of the prosecutrix at about 3-4 P.M., who after meeting them went away. As she (prosecutrix) had not come for a considerable time, she asked her husband to search for the prosecutrix. Her husband and maternal uncle found her (prosecutrix) lying unconscious in the fields. She alongwith her husband came to the house of the prosecutrix at about 3-4 P.M., who after meeting them went away. As she (prosecutrix) had not come for a considerable time, she asked her husband to search for the prosecutrix. Her husband and maternal uncle found her (prosecutrix) lying unconscious in the fields. She was thereafter taken to the hospital. Her condition worsened and then she was referred to PGI for treatment. She states that when the prosecutrix was asked, she narrated the entire story that she had consumed medicine which was provided by Rianka (accused). Her statement was recorded on 29th August. In cross-examination she states that on 29th August the prosecutrix had told her about the accused refusing to marry her. She also says that she asked the prosecutrix that why she had not disclosed the relationship with the accused to her parents, but no reason was forthcoming. She was informed by the prosecutrix of her relation with the accused two days prior to “17th of 2011”. She states that she knew that the accused wanted to marry her, but did not know the fact that they were having physical relations earlier to 17th of April. She says that she was not told about the pregnancy of the prosecutrix by any doctor. However, the doctors had informed the father of prosecutrix about this. It is this evidence including that of the police officials/officers which constitutes the backbone of the case of the prosecution. 19. On the facts as established by this evidence, the learned Court holds that the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, credit worthy and has remained un-shattered. In cross-examination, the testimony of prosecutrix, coupled with the facts that PW-2 Karmo Devi, PW-22 Trisha Devi, PW-3 Dr.Neenu Narula, PW-26 Dr.Arjun Datt Lau, the Forensic Science Laboratory reports Ex.PW-19/A and Ex.PW-20/C, corroborates the version of the prosecutrix. The learned Court then considers the submissions made by the counsel for the parties as also the fact urged by the Public Prosecutor that the prosecutrix was duped into having sexual intercourse on the first occasion by administering some kind of intoxicant substance. He concludes that the telephone record proves that the prosecutrix and the accused were talking for a long periods of time and that non-examination of the friends of the prosecutrix did not make much difference to the case. He concludes that the telephone record proves that the prosecutrix and the accused were talking for a long periods of time and that non-examination of the friends of the prosecutrix did not make much difference to the case. He accepts the version that some Cellphos tablets were given by the accused to the prosecutrix to abort the fetus. It is in these circumstances that conviction has been recorded. 20. Although the learned Court makes an effort to support each one of the points urged by the parties with precedent, but what the Court forget is to test the statement of each of the witnesses for its consistency. The medical evidence of PW-3 Dr.Neenu Narula and PW-26 Dr.Arjun Dutt Lau, including the MLC issued by them, has been considered in detail by the learned trial Court; which do not disclose any pregnancy or abortion or attempted abortion of the prosecutrix. No signs of abortion/attempted abortion have been found in medical evidence. None of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecutrix that she infact had been raped in a hotel in Daulatpur Chowk, but according to the statement of PW-4 Dharampal, owner of the Fast Food shop at Daulatpur Chowk, where the first act was purportedly committed in the upper floor does not establish this fact. PW-5 Anil Kumar also denies any knowledge about introducing the prosecutrix to the accused. Most of all, it is the statement of PW-7 Ved Parkash which is significant, for the reason that the consistent case of the prosecution, as supported by the prosecution, PW-1 Shamsher Singh, PW-2 Karmo Devi (parents of the prosecutrix), prosecutrix herself is that a Panchayat was convened where the accused and his family had stated that no marriage would be solemnized because of the caste difference between the parties. True it is that the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be ordinarily doubted and she could also not be treated as an accomplice. The case made out by the prosecutrix is that the promise was held out to marry her, but even Trisha Devi PW-9 expressed her ignorance about this fact and did not corroborate about convening any Panchayat. The Up-Pradhan PW-7 Ved Parkash has totally denied that any such Panchayat was convened there except that some people had gathered near the pond and that there were some arguments between the parties. 21. The Up-Pradhan PW-7 Ved Parkash has totally denied that any such Panchayat was convened there except that some people had gathered near the pond and that there were some arguments between the parties. 21. PW-26 Dr.Arjun Dutt Lau at PGI does not state anything about pregnancy, though the prosecutrix says that she was informed by him that she is pregnant. She also says that a call was made by her to the accused to come immediately as she has a very little time for survival. But these facts are also not established or proved on the record. I also note that in the totality, medical evidence does not support the prosecution case, save and except, that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. It is bit strange that this relationship was going on for two years and according to the prosecutrix she has been ravished in the fields near her house. It is also established fact that there were many houses surrounding the house of the prosecutrix and this kind of affair had been going on from two years without attracting attention of any person. 22. In fact, the evidence has been considered in some detail in order to assess the evidence to test it for its consistency as to whether the offences have been established or not. 23. A number of judgments have been cited before me both by the appellant as also by the learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the statement of the prosecutrix does not require any corroboration which is the settled law. (See: Aman Kumar and Another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497 , State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Asha Ram, 2006 Cri.L.J. 139 and Naresh Kumar vs. State of H.P., 2006 Cri.L.J. 1985). This is the established proposition and does not need any reiteration or repetition. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that circumstances proved on record are such that the mere statement of prosecutrix cannot be relied upon. This is the established proposition and does not need any reiteration or repetition. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that circumstances proved on record are such that the mere statement of prosecutrix cannot be relied upon. In particular, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2006)10 SCC 92 , Narayan alias Naran vs. State of Rajasthan (2007)6 SCC 465 , to urge that though corroboration is not the rule but if there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix as also the medical evidence, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of prosecutrix alone. In particular, he emphasizes that in Dinesh Jaiswal vs. State of M.P., 2010 Cri.L.J. 1917 and Abbas Ahmad Choudhary vs. State of Assam, 2010 Cri.L.J. 2060, the Supreme Court holds that there is no presumption that the prosecutrix is always telling the truth. In Dinesh Jaswal’s case the Court holds: “5. Mr. C.D. Singh has however placed reliance on Moti Lal’s case (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 882:2008 AIR SCW 4846 (supra) to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances. There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has been so emphasized by this Court time and again) but to hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the improbabilities in her story is an argument that can never be accepted. The test always is as to whether the given story prima facie inspires confidence. We are of the opinion that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one. 6. As already mentioned above, in our opinion, the story given by the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. We thus allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and direct that the appellant be acquitted.” (pp.1919) (Emphasis added) 25. To similar effect is the ratio of the judgment passed in Abbas Ahmad’s case. Learned counsel also submits that in Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007)12 SCC 57 , the Supreme Court rules that if there are inconsistencies and major discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix, no conviction can be sustained on such evidence. 26. Two other decisions may be noticed on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 26. Two other decisions may be noticed on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In Pritam Chand vs. State of H.P. Current L.J. Supp (2008) 51, this Court considered the Supreme Court’s precedent as noticed supra and holds inter alia that: “23. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstance above, especially the contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and her brother, the unnatural behaviour of the brother and the mother, the medical evidence which shows that there are no signs of struggle or injuries on the private part of the minor prosecutrix and last but not the least the fact that the vaginal swab contains no human semen, in my opinion it would be highly improper to convict the accused on the oral statement of the prosecutrix and her brother. The statements are not corroborated by the other evidence but in fact grave doubts regarding the correctness of the statements arise because of these inherent contradictions. The attending circumstances and other evidence in fact shatter the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has based the conviction only on the ground that there is no reason to disbelieve the child especially a girl of such tender age. This may be correct but in view of the various inconsistencies as pointed out above I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.” (at p.57-58) 27. To similar effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shanker, (2000)9 SCC 161 on which he also places reliance. The rule for assessing evidence has been succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in C.Magesh and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2010)5 SCC 645 . 28. I find from an assessment of the evidence that on the major points starting from the genesis of the entire offence till the subsequent occurrences which includes establishment of physical intimacy in open fields surrounded by houses, no corroboration on the point of pregnancy and in absence of any evidence to show that the prosecutrix was administered any medicine for inducing abortion, her statement cannot be relied upon in its entirety. Further, lack of evidence about a Panchayat being held and total lack of evidence as to whether the prosecutrix was dying (as she stated) and was informed by the doctor that she was pregnant in which event she should call the accused, it cannot be said that there is consistency in her statement. There is also no evidence that any offence has been proved under Section 3(I)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 29. In these circumstances, the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Una, is quashed and set aside. Appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith in case he is not wanted in any other offence. The fine, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant.