Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2758 (RAJ)

Sau Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-10-24

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The office objection is over-ruled and the matter is heard today itself on admission. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Sau Devi under Section 372 r/w Section 378 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.12/2018 (188/2016) whereby, the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, r/w Section 120-B, 366-A r/w Section 120-B, Sections 328, 328 r/w Section 120-B, 376 r/w Section 120-B IPC & 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 and Section 16 r/w Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. 4. On going through the impugned judgment, it is clear that the trial Court discussed the entire statement of the victim in detail at Paras Nos.10 to 17 of the impugned judgment. 5. On going through the reproduced parts of the victim's evidence, it is clear that she went with the accused Jeeta Ram on 17.06.2016 of her own free will and volition. She further alleged that she was made to consume some cold drink laced with intoxicants which had been brought by Karna Ram. She started feeling drowsy after consuming the same. Kheraj Ram took her to Rai-ka-baag from where at 7:30 p.m. she was taken to Modasar (Gujarat), on the pretext that she would be made to meet her brother. She further alleged that at Modasar, Kheraj Ram took her to his room and kept her in confinement between 18 to 20th June 2016 and subjected her to sexual intercourse. In cross examination, the girl admitted that when she left her house, her mother and her sister Bhanwari were present there but she did not tell them where or with whom she was going. She came to Jodhpur from Bawari in a city bus. Many people were sitting in the city bus. The fare was paid by Kheraj Ram and at no point of time did she make a complaint to anyone that the accused had forced her to accompany him. After getting down from the bus (Modasar), they went to Kheraj Ram's room on foot. Many people were sitting in the city bus. The fare was paid by Kheraj Ram and at no point of time did she make a complaint to anyone that the accused had forced her to accompany him. After getting down from the bus (Modasar), they went to Kheraj Ram's room on foot. Even at that point of time she did not make any protest and rather she even admitted that she was unaware that Kheraj Ram had brought her forcibly. Her brother called her on 20th June, 2016 and she told him that she was at Nagaur. Throughout her captivity, Kheraj Ram would go to his shop in morning at 7 o'clock and return with food at about 9 o'clock and then he would go back to his shop. When she returned from Modasar to Jodhpur, Kheraj Ram provided her with a mobile phone. When she appeared at the police station, she told the police officials that she had accompanied Kheraj Ram of her own free will and volition. She was sent with her parents, who tutored her to give statement against Kheraj Ram and thus, she deposed against him. 6. In view of these facts as elicited in the statement of the girl, it is clear that her act of proceeding from home with Jeeta Ram was voluntary. She proceeded from Jodhpur to Modasar with Kheraj Ram of her own free will and volition. No force, threat, coercion or duress was used by Kheraj Ram on the girl. Thus, the fact of the relationship between them being consensual is well established. The prosecution relied upon the school certificate (Ex.P/5) of the girl, so as to prove that the girl was below 18 years of the age on the date of incident. The trial Court discussed this aspect at Para No.58 of the impugned judgment wherein, a finding is recorded that the certificate which was presented was a photostat copy of the original and the prosecution was advised to produce the original on record, however, no such step was ever taken in this regard. The trial Court discussed this aspect at Para No.58 of the impugned judgment wherein, a finding is recorded that the certificate which was presented was a photostat copy of the original and the prosecution was advised to produce the original on record, however, no such step was ever taken in this regard. After discussing the oral evidence of the parents and other close relatives of the victim, the trial Court held at Paras No.59 to 63 of the impugned judgment that the victim was above 18 years of age as per the various possible outcomes from the statements deposed by the witnesses and in no possibility her age was found to be less than 18 years when the incident took place. Manifestly, neither was medical evidence procured so as to prove that the victim was less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. The reason assigned by the trial Court for discarding the school certificate is absolutely justified. Thus, we are in conformity with the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment that neither was the victim a child on the date of the incident, nor was she sexually assaulted by the accused-respondent Kheraj Ram and rather the relationship between the victim and Kheraj Ram was purely consensual in nature. 7. In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to admit the instant appeal filed by the appellant-Sau Devi for assailing the acquittal of the accused-respondents by the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2019, which does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or illegality whatsoever warranting interference. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.