Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2260 (ALL)

Urmila Devi v. State of U. P.

2014-07-31

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, UMA NATH SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the appeal paper book. 2. This criminal appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 19th October, 2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No.104 of 2013, whereby the accused respondents namely Fattu and Raj Bahadur were acquitted of charges under Section 376 read with 511 and 506 IPC. 3. As per prosecution case the incident is said to have taken place on 7th May, 2012 at about 2.00 in day time. Smt. Urmila, the prosecutrix was carrying vegetables from forest on a theli (Manual Carrier). On way accused Fattu met her. He started conducting in indecent manners with the prosecutrix. He also tried to break her theli. Thereafter, he (accused Fattu) with one more person took her along forcibly inside a field and attempted to commit sexual intercourse. They also threatened her with dire consequences. Upon hearing her shouts Sunil son of Jabar Singh and Raj Kumar son of Ramman Singh arrived at the scene of occurrence. Thereupon the accused persons left the place. As per further version of the prosecution case, the prosecutrix went to police station to lodge an FIR. But when no action was taken, she filed a private complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the Court of competent Magistrate, whereupon it was directed to lodge the FIR. After conducting investigation a chargesheet under Section 376 read with Section 511 and 506 IPC was put up against accused Fattu and Raj Bahadur. During the course of trial the prosecution examined four witnesses namely prosecutrix Urmila Devi, PW-1; her brother-in-law Raj Kumar, PW-2; Sub Inspector Udaiveer Sharma, PW-3, and Sub Inspector Harendra Singh, PW-4. The accused persons in their examination under Section 313 CrPC before the Court denied the charges and pleaded false implications. They also offerred to lead defence evidence in support of their explanation. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant- appellant submitted that the psyche of women folk of rural area is totally different. They are an illiterate and rustic lot. Therefore, their testimony should not be scrutinised at par with other witnesses. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution case is supported by the prosecutrix as well as her brother-in-law (PW-2). 4. Learned counsel for the complainant- appellant submitted that the psyche of women folk of rural area is totally different. They are an illiterate and rustic lot. Therefore, their testimony should not be scrutinised at par with other witnesses. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution case is supported by the prosecutrix as well as her brother-in-law (PW-2). It is also a submission of learned counsel that there may be some contradictions between the statements of witnesses but they are of trivial nature and that should not be made a ground to reject the prosecution case. 5. On a careful reading of the trial court's judgment in the light of submissions of learned counsel it is difficult to persuade ourselves to agree with the submissions. Smt. Urmila Devi, PW-1, the prosecutrix, has given her statement also under Section 164 CrPC. She has stated that the accused persons wanted to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her. Upon raising shouts, her brother-in-law Raj Kumar, PW-2 and one Sunil came to the scene of occurrence. Having noticed them, the accused persons fled away from the spot. She went to police station to lodge a report but it was not recorded. Therefore, she filed a private complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC. She also stated that she had given statement under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate and when it was read out to her, she admitted to have given the text of statement. However, there is a variance between the averments made in the complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC and the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the Court of competent Magistrate. In her statement the prosecutrix has testified that Raj Kumar, PW-2 and Sunil chased the accused persons but Raj Kumar, PW-2 has deposed that he had not tried to apprehend the accused. That apart it appears from the record that prior to the alleged incident a case had been registered against her husband Laxman and brother-in-law Raj Kumar, PW-2 for having trespassed into house and causing assaults to accused Fattu. The crime number is noted as Case Crime No.312 of 2012 under Section 323 , 452, 325, 504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Syohara, Bijnor. Thus, there was a motive to falsely implicate the accused. The crime number is noted as Case Crime No.312 of 2012 under Section 323 , 452, 325, 504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Syohara, Bijnor. Thus, there was a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Moreover accused Fattu had already sufferred fracture of bone and thus it was not possible for him to drag the prosecutrix inside a field for committing forcible sexual intercourse. Besides, the age of accused Fattu has been recorded as 70 years and that of Raj Bahadur 60 years, whereas the prosecutrix was young. It appears that she had two children and she had been married for the past 15 years back. Thus, she must be a young lady. That apart, the manner of commission of offence also does not appear to be worth believing; for it was stated by PW-2 that the prosecutrix was laid on the ground and then the accused persons tried to commit the offence, whereas it has come in the testimony of prosecutrix that the accused persons just lifted her clothes and in that position tried to commit intercourse. Thus, there is a material contradiction in the testimonies of witnesses. Other witnesses are only official and formal in nature. Sub Inspector Udaiveer Sharma, PW-3 and Sub Inspector Harendra Singh, PW-4 have supported the investigation but that nevertheless the prosecutrix was not subjected to any medical examination nor were her torn clothes seized during the course of investigation; nor was there any mark of violence noticed on her body. Besides, Sunil, who rushed to the scene of occurrence with witness Raj Kumar, PW-2 was not produced in witness box. In that view of the matter, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimonies of prosecutrix, PW-1 and her brother-in-law Raj Kumar, PW-2, who were highly interested to see that the accused persons were prosecuted and convicted as a revenge for the FIR lodged by accused Fattu against the husband and brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. 6. Hence, the criminal appeal does not have any merit and further, it is also barred by a delay of 202 days, wherefor there is no satisfactory explanation. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.