Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1431 (RAJ)

State v. Megh Nath

2022-05-06

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. In the present criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-State, a challenge is laid to the judgment dated 30.03.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No.21/92 (12/89), whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offences under Sections 376, 357 & 114 IPC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that a verbal report was lodged by complainant-Smt. Aasi (also referred to as ‘prosecutrix’) before the Police Station, Dungargarh, to the effect that two years prior to lodging of the said report, upon the death of her father-in-law, her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.500/-from the accused respondent Meghnath; in lieu of such loan, the complainant alongwith her husband worked in the field of the accused-respondent, so as to enable them to repay the said amount, which they successfully repaid accordingly. 3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the complainant further alleged that one day prior to lodging of the report, while the complainant alongwith her husband was going for road works, the present accused-respondent alongwith one Mohanram, met them outside their village, and made a demand of the aforementioned amount of Rs.500/-; the complainant and her husband told the accused-respondent that the said amount was repaid by them, as they worked in the field of the accused-respondent, in lieu of repayment of such loan amount; thereafter, scuffle took place between both the parties. 3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that as per the aforementioned report, thereafter, owing to the illness of the complainant’s mother-in-law, her husband went to her mother-in-law to take care of her, while the complainant stayed in her own Saal. 3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that as per the aforementioned report, thereafter, owing to the illness of the complainant’s mother-in-law, her husband went to her mother-in-law to take care of her, while the complainant stayed in her own Saal. 3.3 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at about 3 o’clock in the night, while the complainant/prosecutrix was sleeping, the accused-respondent alongwith Mohanram (armed with Barchhi) came and broke open the door of her Saal, as a result of which, she woke up immediately and they were clearly identified by the prosecutrix as the accused were clearly visible in the light of Chimni; when the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, the said Mohan Ram restrained her from doing so by saying that she will be badly beaten with the said Barchhi; thereafter, under such threat, she was subjected to rape by the accused-respondent Meghnath, and after that, while the accused were trying to run away, the prosecutrix raised hue and cry, as a result of which, her husband and some of her neighbours came out, but on count of Mohanram armed with Barchhi, both the accused could not be intercepted. 3.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that on the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered against the present accused-respondent Meghnath as well as his accomplice Mohanram for the alleged offences and the investigation commenced accordingly. After due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against both the accused persons for the offences under Sections 376, 457 and 114 IPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh; but owing to the charge under Section 376 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Churu, from where the case was sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu (‘trial court’) for the necessary trial and adjudication. 3.5 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after filing of the aforementioned charge-sheet, the said accused-Mohanram, without any reason and explanation, did not turn up for trial, and accordingly, his bail bonds and sureties were forfeited, followed by issuance of arrest warrant against him; despite issuance of the arrest warrant, when the presence of accused-Mohan Ram could not be secured, he was declared absconder on 26.06.1991 and a standing warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him and it was also ordered to initiate the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him. 3.5 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned trial court on 26.06.1991, framed the charges against the present accused-respondent-Meghnath for the offences under Sections 450 and 376 IPC; the accused-respondent denied the said charges, and claimed trial; accordingly, the trial commenced. 3.6 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned trial court however, vide the impugned judgment dated 30.03.1993, acquitted the present accused-respondent Meghnath only, from the charges levelled against them; however, qua the other accused Mohanram, owing to the factum of his being declared an absconder, his acquittal could not be made, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned judgment; also in regard to accused-Mohan Ram certain directions were also given in the impugned judgment. 3.7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal in favour of the present accused-respondent Meghnath, without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before the court; further the learned trial court has also erred in arriving at the conclusion that the reliability of the prosecution witnesses and evidence was questionable, which casts a serious doubt upon the case of the prosecution. 3.8 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits the learned trial court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the present criminal proceeding involved commission of a heinous crime, like rape, wherein the testimony of the prosecutrix alone, upon being consistent, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty, to be punished accordingly, and such punishment is required to commensurate with the gravity of the offence of rape. 3.9 Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that the learned trial court on count minor consistencies in the prosecution evidence, has drawn the conclusion regarding acquittal of the present accused-respondent; while doing so, the learned trial court has wrongly held that the criminal proceeding as launched against the accused-respondent are fabricated one. 3.10 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has also failed to appreciate the fact that no lady would launch a false criminal proceeding, more particularly, with an allegation of commission of rape, against any person, as, if it is so done, the same would not only render her character questionable, but would also put the reputation and social prospects of the whole family at stake; the alleged incident was also followed by meeting of Village Panchayat to take the accused-respondent to task. But, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court without due consideration of the said vital aspect of the case, passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. 3.11 Learned Public Prosecutor thus submits that from the aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment, which is not only erroneous on fact, but in law as well, and thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court, thereby holding the accused-respondent and his companion Mohan Ram guilty of the alleged offence, and accordingly, make them liable for punishment, as carved out under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the learned trial court had passed the impugned judgment, after duly appreciating all the evidence placed before it, and after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that despite having adequate time and opportunity, the prosecutrix has not raised any alarm, during the course of commission of the alleged rape by the accused-respondent Meghnath. As regards the version of the prosecutrix to the effect that during the course of the alleged crime, she could not raise any hue and cry, as she was put under threat of dire consequences at the instance of accomplice-Mohan Ram, who was armed with Barchhi, learned counsel submits that the said version was being thwarted before the learned trial court successfully by the learned counsel representing the accused-respondent before it. As per learned counsel, the said version was dealt with in an appropriate manner by the learned trial court, and the same was thus rightly disbelieved by the learned trial court. 4.2 Learned counsel also submits that the inconsistencies and discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned trial court, were not minor, as contended on behalf of the appellant-State. As per learned counsel, the said version was dealt with in an appropriate manner by the learned trial court, and the same was thus rightly disbelieved by the learned trial court. 4.2 Learned counsel also submits that the inconsistencies and discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned trial court, were not minor, as contended on behalf of the appellant-State. The said inconsistencies and discrepancies, as per the learned counsel, were material and major; not only this, even the depositions made by the prosecutrix herself and her husband before the learned trial court were completely inconsistent, as a totally different story was put forth by them before the learned trial court, which by no stretch of imagination, could be disbelieved by the learned trial court, and rightly so, as done vide the impugned judgment. 4.3 Learned counsel further submits that apart from the inconsistencies even in the depositions made by the prosecutrix herself and her husband, it is also a matter of record that as per the prosecutrix, the alleged commission of rape lasted for about 4-5 minutes coupled with resistance by the prosecutrix, which certainly would have its traces left on the person of the prosecutrix; but as the record and the impugned judgment would reveal, even after commission of such a crime and resistance there against, as per the medical evidence, no such telltale marks (even a single injury on any of her body parts, particularly the genitals), were found on the person of the prosecutrix during her medical examination; such medical evidence, being an expert opinion, is beyond any doubt. 4.4 Learned counsel also submits that it was also not ascertainable on the part of the prosecution that the semen found on the person (her genitals, in particular) and apparels of the prosecutrix was that of the present accused-respondent. 4.5 As regards the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-State regarding convening of Panchayat to decide upon the fate of the accused-respondent, following the commission of the alleged rape, learned counsel submits that it is clearly apparent on the face of the record that the then Sarpanch (Rameshwar Lal) of the Village was having animosity with the present accused-respondent, and thus, the verbal report in question, as submitted by the prosecutrix before the police, was in fact written by the said Sarpanch. 4.6 Learned counsel thus submits that the aforementioned factual backdrop makes it amply clear that the present accused-respondent has been falsely implicated in this case, as the same was done at the instance of the then Sarpanch, so as to enable him to teach a lesson to the present accused-respondent, that too on wrong premises. As per learned counsel, the said endeavour on the part of the prosecutrix and the then Sarpanch was set at naught by the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment, and rightly so. 4.7 Learned counsel thus submits that even on a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it becomes clear that the learned trial court has made a threadbare analysis of each and every aspect, material to the adjudication, coupled with equal and alike analysis of all the evidence placed on record before it, and only after undertaking such a strenuous exercise and adjudication, during the course of trial, the impugned judgment was passed by the learned trial court. As per learned counsel, such a detailed and well reasoned speaking judgment may not be interfered with by this Court; this is more so, when the prosecution has completely failed to prove charges against the present accused-respondent, beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, at the outset, this Court finds that the detailed analysis as done by the learned trial court, while passing the impugned judgment, clearly commensurate with gravity the offence, for which the accused-respondent was charged, and after due trial, acquitted therefrom. Thus, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-State that the impugned judgment lacks due appreciation of the material available on record, owing to the fact that the present criminal proceeding involved the commission of the heinous offence of rape, is not acceptable to this Court, at the very threshold; this is more so when, the learned trial court has even taken due care, while passing the impugned judgment, regarding passing the necessary orders qua the alleged accomplice (Mohan Ram), who was absconding in the present case. 6. 6. This Court finds that the version, as put forth by the prosecutrix to the effect that during the commission of the alleged crime, the door was not completely closed by the present accused-respondent and his alleged accomplice Mohan Ram; if that was so, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed, as to what prevented the prosecutrix from raising any immediate alarm, more particularly, in view of the admitted fact that as soon as the door was broke open, the prosecutrix awoke; the explanation given by the prosecutrix regarding not raising any alarm, was tried to be substantiated on count of the threat alleged to have been given by the alleged accomplice (Mohan Ram), who was armed with Barchhi. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why she did not raise any alarm as soon as the accused entered the Saal of the prosecutrix and immediately upon the accused being identified and recognized by the prosecutrix. Thus, such version casts a serious shadow of doubt on the said version of the prosecutrix, regarding not raising any immediate alarm or hue and cry; this is more so, when her neighbours and her husband were quite near to the place of incident, that upon hearing the hue and cry of the prosecutrix, following the incident in question, they immediately reached the place of such incident. 7. As regards the version of the prosecutrix in the report that the accused-respondent and his alleged accomplice have intercepted the prosecutrix and her husband in relation to demand regarding repayment of the loan amount of Rs.500/-, at the time when the prosecutrix and her husband were going for work, this Court finds that though the prosecutrix has stated that she and her husband were beaten up by the accused persons, as a result of the scuffle between both the parties, but she had not made any mention as to how such scuffle stopped, or as to who intervened in such scuffle; whereas her husband Jodharam in his statement made a categorical deposition that upon intervention of two persons, namely, Ramkumar and one other person, the scuffle came to an end. 8. This Court finds various inconsistencies in the depositions made, amongst others, by the prosecutrix and her husband. 8. This Court finds various inconsistencies in the depositions made, amongst others, by the prosecutrix and her husband. This is more so when, on count of severe beatings given by the accused, the husband of the prosecutrix was in such a state, that he was not able to move freely and with comfort; if that was so, as to how, as per the depositions made, on the same night, her husband went to have gossips with the local residents, and thereafter, at about 12:30 in the night, he went to visit and take care of his ailing mother, and not only this, he immediately reached the place of incident (Saal of the prosecutrix), upon hearing the hue and cry of the prosecutrix, as raised after the incident. 9. The investigation that took place, could not ascertain as to whether, as alleged by the prosecutrix, she alongwith her husband, worked at the field of the accused-respondent, in lieu of the loan amount of Rs.500/-, as taken by her husband from the present accused-respondent. 10. The medical evidence, as produced before the learned trial court, clearly reveals no injury on the person of the prosecutrix, more particularly, on her genitals; had the alleged rape been committed, as projected by the prosecution, it cannot be safely presumed that the same would not leave any telltale marks, more particularly, on the person of the prosecutrix, who must have strongly resisted such an act, in whatever manner possible. 11. The medical evidence before the learned trial court, in the form of chemical examination report of the semen and pubic hair of the accused-respondent, vaginal swab, apparels etc. of the prosecutrix, clearly revealed that the same are not sufficient to connect the present accused-respondent with the alleged crime in question, in any manner whatsoever. 12. As regards, the argument of animosity, between the present accused-respondent and the then Sarpanch Rameshwarlal, who was instrumental to the initiation of the present criminal proceeding, as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-respondent, this Court however, finds that the said aspect has been appropriately and effectively dealt with and adjudicated by the learned trial court, whereby the learned trial court has rightly found that the story of the prosecution is very much doubtful, and thus, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove the charges against the present accused-respondent, beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. 13. Thus, this Court, in the aforesaid backdrop and observations, finds that there is no incriminating evidence placed on record by the prosecution so as to connect the present accused-respondent with the alleged crime; the prosecution has further failed to prove that the alleged incident had occurred in the same manner, as projected by the prosecution. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, particularly, for the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, so as to persuade this Court to take a different view than the one already taken by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment. 14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well reasoned speaking judgment passed by the learned trial court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 15. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith.