Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1824 (ALL)

Ram Sajivan Mishra v. State of U. P.

2016-05-11

RANJANA PANDYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. – Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 3.3.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 16 of 2014 (State v. Ram Sajivan) arising out of Crime No. 279 of 2013, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Sureri, District-Jaunpur, whereby the accused-appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5000/- fine with default stipulation. Notices were also directed to be issued and proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. were directed to be drawn against the victim. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 4.11.2013 an application was submitted by the victim to the S.O., Sureri, District-Jaunpur stating that her husband works at Mumbai. She lives with her two infant children in the house. On the date of incident about 1 O'clock in the night, when she was sleeping with her two infant children in the house, an unknown person entered into her house and raped her. He left her somehow, when she raised hue and cry. Thereafter, neighbors caught the accused and informed the father, uncle and other family members of the victim. The accused along with witnesses was brought to the police station, whose name was Ram Sajivan. 3. The victim was medically examined by P.W. 3 Dr. Rita Dubey, who did not find any internal or external injury on the body of the victim. No bleeding or discharge was present. Vagina was admitting two fingers easily. The hymen was old torn and healed. This witness proved the medical report and supplementary report. There was no evidence of rape. Besides this witness the prosecution examined P.W. 1 the victim and P.W. 2 Ramjan. The victim proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-1 and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka-2. 4. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is nothing but a previous statement of the victim. When her statement was recorded before the Magistrate, she specifically stated that the accused Ram Sajivan forcibly entered into her room and raped her. But initially Ram Sajivan was mentioned an unknown person and later on while lodging the F.I.R., the name of the accused, who belong to a different village, was mentioned is a million dollar question, which remained unanswered throughout the trial. 5. The victim has supported the prosecution version in her examination-in-chief. But initially Ram Sajivan was mentioned an unknown person and later on while lodging the F.I.R., the name of the accused, who belong to a different village, was mentioned is a million dollar question, which remained unanswered throughout the trial. 5. The victim has supported the prosecution version in her examination-in-chief. Although, she has stated in her examination-in-chief that Ram Sajivan entered into her house and raped her. She received injuries on her both hands. This witness was subjected to cross-examination, in which she stated that on the date of occurrence, there was no source of light in her room. There was darkness in the room. She could not identify and recognise the person, who raped her. When she raised alarm 25 to 50 people gathered there. They all went to the police station and she was also taken to the police station. Her family members and villagers from nearby villages also came. She further stated that the accused-appellant Ram Sajivan is her neighbour. 6. The victim has stated that the accused-appellant Ram Sajivan did not rape her nor he entered into the house at the time of the incident. She named Ram Sajivan on the pressure of the Sub-Inspector. She has also named the Ram Sajivan in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. due to pressure. Further, this witness has stated that the people, who had gathered at that time took Ram Sajivan to the police station. Just this witness categorically denied of the accused having entered into her house or raped her. 7. P.W. 2 is the Ramjan, who is the father of the victim, who has stated that on the date of occurrence neither he nor his brother Jalaluddin, Subrati and his son Kasim went to the house of his daughter, neither he had any knowledge that Ram Sajivan had raped her daughter. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, who proceeded to cross-examine this witness, but there is nothing significant in the cross-examination. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and the trial court has committed grave illegality in convicting the accused in a no evidence case. 8. Thus, the judgement as regards conviction of the accused-appellant Ram Sajivan is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned lower court has given a finding that the victim P.W. 1 has given false statement before the court. 8. Thus, the judgement as regards conviction of the accused-appellant Ram Sajivan is liable to be set aside. 9. The learned lower court has given a finding that the victim P.W. 1 has given false statement before the court. It has yet to be decided which of the statement is false so that part of the judgement need not be interfered. The proceedings drawn by the trial court under Section 344 Cr.P.C. shall proceed in accordance with law, but so far as the conviction of the accused-appellant is concerned, it is liable to be set aside. 10. Hence, the proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. against the victim P.W. 1 shall proceed in accordance with law as directed by the trial court. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 12. Hence, the impugned judgement and order dated 3.3.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 16 of 2014 (State v. Ram Sajivan) arising out of Crime No. 279 of 2013, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Sureri, District Jaunpur is hereby set aside. 13. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. However, the accused-appellant Ram Sajivan is directed to comply with the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned. Appeal allowed.