Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1543 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Rajuram

2017-07-12

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The State of Rajasthan has approached this Court by way of instant appeal in order to assail the judgment dated 13.5.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 28/2014 (365/2014) acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 376 IPC. 2. Notice of the appeal has been served on the respondent but nobody has put in appearance on his behalf. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned P.P. and have gone through the impugned order as well as the record. 4. Succinctly stated the prosecution story is that the prosecutrix Mst. 'S' submitted a report at Police Station Sri Vijaynagar on 28.1.2014 with the allegation that the accused respondent herein was harassing her for the last about 4 to 5 days. On 28.1.2014 at about 4.30 in the morning he stealthily entered the house of the prosecutrix, forcibly took her out and then subjected her to sexual intercourse against her desire. During the course of sexual assault the accused had allegedly gagged the mouth of the prosecutix owing to which she could not shout. However, after some time she could muster strength to raise a hue and cry whereupon her maternal uncle Lalchand came out and saw the respondent ravaging her. He intervened and saved her. On the basis of this report F.I.R. No. 32/2014 was registered at P.S. Sri Vijaynagar for the offences under Section 342, 120, 363, 366A and 376 IPC and investigation commenced. Upon conclusion of investigation the Investigation Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the respondent for the offence under section 376 IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 15 documents. The accused denied the prosecution case in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge, vide judgment dated 13.5.2016 proceeded to discard the prosecution story, disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix and acquitted the respondent from the charge. For coming to this conclusion the learned trial Judge held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was vacillating, contradictory and totally unreliable. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge, vide judgment dated 13.5.2016 proceeded to discard the prosecution story, disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix and acquitted the respondent from the charge. For coming to this conclusion the learned trial Judge held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was vacillating, contradictory and totally unreliable. In the FIR, the prosecutrix alleged that the accused stealthily came into her house at 4.30 A.M. and dragged her to the toilet outside where she was sexually assaulted. However, the allegation that the accused managed to enter into the house of the prosecutrix undetected, lifted her bodily and took her out and yet she did not raise any voice for help was considered as creating a grave doubt on her story. Further, as per the site plan Ex.P-3A, it was noticed that the dimension of toilet where the incident allegedly took place measured a mere 4 x 4 ft. and in which, a platform measuring 3 x 3 ft. was built. The story of the prosecutrix that she was forcibly taken by the accused into the said squeezed premises and thereafter the accused unclothed himself, disrobed her and then subjected her to forcible intercourse without her being able to raise any protest or hue and cry was held to be absolutely unbelievable. Yet another significant contradiction was noticed in her story. Whilst in the F.I.R. it was alleged that the accused entered into her house, forcibly lifted her and took her out and then subjected her to sexual intercourse against her desire but contrary thereto, in her sworn testimony the prosecutrix alleged that at 4.30 in the morning she had gone to the toilet for easing herself and at that time the accused came around and committed rape upon her. This significant and material contradiction in the sworn testimony of the prosecution vis-a-vis the F.I.R. lodged by her was considered to be fatal to the prosecution case and rightly so in my opinion. Lalchand, maternal uncle of the victim and his wife were alleged to be an eye witness of the incident but the lady was not examined in evidence by the prosecution. Lalchand clearly admitted in his cross examination that when he saw the accused and the prosecutrix inside the toilet, both of them were totally nude. The Medical Officer P.W. 5 Dr. Lalchand clearly admitted in his cross examination that when he saw the accused and the prosecutrix inside the toilet, both of them were totally nude. The Medical Officer P.W. 5 Dr. Ramgopal who conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix found no marks of violence or injury on her person and no signs of fresh sexual intercourse were noticed on her genitals. The platform where the prosecutrix was allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse against her desire was built of rough stone and the toilet itself was a mere 4 x 4 in size. Thus, this Court is of a firm view that no such act of forcible intercourse was possible therein and even if it happened then the prosecutrix was bound to receive injuries on her body in the process. The absolute lack of injuries on her person and the fact that Lalchand saw the prosecutrix and the accused in a totally nude compromising position clearly establishes that the sexual relations were being established with consent and the matter was reported only because the act was discovered. 6. Considering the entirety of the material as available on record, this Court is inclined to affirm the finding of innocence recorded by the trial court in favour of the respondent. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 13.5.2016 is based on sound and proper appreciation of the material available on record and does not warrant any interference in the instant appeal against acquittal. 7. Consequently, while affirming the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 13.5.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Sri Ganganagar, the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan seeking reversal of respondent's acquittal from the charge under Section 376 IPC is hereby dismissed. Record be returned to the trial court.