Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2064 (RAJ)

State v. Buta Singh

2022-07-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the leave to appeal in the present matter may kindly be granted and the appeal may kindly be accepted and entertained. It is further prayed that the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar dated 2.8.1989 may kindly be set aside and the accused persons may kindly be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law and appropriate sentences may kindly be awarded.” 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 02.08.1989, passed by the learned Sessions Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of all the charges against them for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned Public Prosecutor are that on 14.04.1986 Mahendra Singh S/o Banta Singh lodged an F.I.R. at the Police Station, Anupgarh alleging therein that he was not at home on 11.04.1986 for some work and that upon his return on 12.04.1986, he learned that his sister, Angrez Kaur @ Guddi, aged about 14 years, while asleep in the courtyard of their house, on the night of 11.04.1986, at about 1 a.m. she was found to be missing from the charpai by her elder sister, Nasib Kaur. And that, in the morning the mukhiya Jeetsingh was called and it was found that their sister was at the residence of Buta Singh, who lived near Looniya, and that the accused respondents, Buta Singh, Manga Singh, and Darshan Singh, had raped Mahendra Singh’s minor sister Guddi. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the F.I.R. was lodged, upon receipt of such report, against the respondents for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. And that, after the investigation was completed, a challan was filed against all the accused persons before the concerned Magistrate and that it was committed for trial before the concerned Sessions Court. And that, vide judgment dated 02.08.1989, the learned Sessions Court below erred in acquitting the respondents of the charges filed against them for the offences as already mentioned. 5. And that, vide judgment dated 02.08.1989, the learned Sessions Court below erred in acquitting the respondents of the charges filed against them for the offences as already mentioned. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned Sessions Court has erred in so acquitting the respondents, and without rhyme or reason, disbelieved the version of the victim, who in her statement clearly narrated the story, stating therein that she was threatened and beaten by the accused respondents. And that, given the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not possible to produce any independent witness to corroborate the version of the victim. 5.1 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the testimony of the victim clearly reveals that while she was sleeping in the courtyard (aangan) of the her house, along with her elder sister, mother and father, and that, she suddenly awoke to find the rope which was used to tie their buffalo/bull had came loose, which when she had then gone to fasten, the respondents, Buta Singh, Darshan Singh, Manga Singh @ Bhaag Singh kidnapped her and took her to and that, Buta Singh beat her and forced himself upon her after which each of the respondents forced themselves upon her, twice over, due to which she bled from her private parts, and her clothes were also blood stained. After which, the respondents threatened her, to not make any disclosure of what had transpired, and that Buta Singh forced her to wash her blood stained salwar, telling her that if her family found out she would be beaten. After which they left her at Kanak. It was further deposed by her that the next day the respondents picked her up from Kanak and dropped her back to her home. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the delay in filing of the F.I.R., by the complainant, Mahendra Singh, the brother of the victim, was explained and that such delay cannot be held to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that merely because P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 turned hostile, it does not take the case to the realm of reasonable doubt. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned Sessions Court has wrongly disbelieved the statement of P.W. 6 Ramsingh, who prepared the site report (naksha mauka) and who got the victim medically examined. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned Sessions Court has wrongly disbelieved the statement of P.W. 6 Ramsingh, who prepared the site report (naksha mauka) and who got the victim medically examined. That her clothes were taken into custody and examined per the due procedure established by law. And that, there are 8 injuries on the person of the victim. Furthermore, the radiologist’s report reveals that the victim is aged about 17 years, a minor. And that, P.W. 8 Dr. Darbir Singh deposed that the vicitm was aged about 16 years of age. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and looking particularly into the evidences placed on record before it, and correctly afforded the respondents the benefit of doubt. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submits that there was a dispute between the victim’s brother and the respondents herein with regard to water, and that the case lodged against them is an attempt to falsely implicate them, owing to the said dispute. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the testimony of P.W. 1, the victim, was rightly disbelieved by the learned Court below. And that, the allegations made therein did not inspire confidence in the learned Court below. 12. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 13. This Court observes that the learned Court below in acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. has rightly given them the benefit of doubt. 14. The prosecution has failed to take the case beyond the realm of reasonable doubt, and has passed a detailed and speaking order of acquittal for the same. 15. This Court arrives at this conclusion on making the following observations, as rightly recorded by the learned Court below:- 15.1 There is a 3 day delay in filing of the F.I.R. by the complainant, the brother of the girl alleging that the offence of rape was committed on her by the respondents herein, which creates a doubt in the favour of the respondents. Furthermore, there was acrimony between the complainant’s family and the respondents, owing to a water dispute between them. Furthermore, there was acrimony between the complainant’s family and the respondents, owing to a water dispute between them. 15.2 The injuries on the person of the victim, as per the medical report, at Ex. P/2, generated by Dr. P.L. Mathur and Dr. Jyotsna Ojha, state that the injuries appear to be 8-20 days old from the date of medical examination. 15.3 The victim states that she awoke at about 1 a.m. on the night of the incident in question, and saw that the rope which was used to tie their bull/buffalo had come loose, and that when she went to fasten the same, the respondents kidnapped her and took her away. This likelihood of the same that just when the victim happened to awaken, and then happened to notice the rope with which the bovine was tied was loose, and that at the very moment the respondents were waiting in the lurch and then kidnapped her and subsequently raped her, seems highly unlikely, and is not sufficiently corroborated with support of other evidences. 15.4 P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. 15.5 Neither the P.W. 6 Ramsingh, the Investigating Officer, nor the victim have mentioned in their statements deposed in their testimonies anything regarding Bikaner, whereas it is the version of the prosecution that the medical examination to verify the age of the victim was conducted in a facility in Bikaner. This further casts a shadow of doubt on the version of the prosecution. Whereas the medical examination that was conducted in Sri Ganganagar reveals that the age of the victim may be between 17-19 years at the time of the incident, whereas in the F.I.R. it is averred that the victim was about 14 years. 15.6 Furthermore, the testimony of Dr. S.C. Bharadwaj, P.W. 7 in his testimony states that no opinion could be given with respect to recent sexual activity of the victim. 15.7 Lastly, the testimony of Chindo @ Chindra Pal, the neighbour of the victim, states that she went with one Roshan, and upon her return, came back with 2 new sets of clothes, a radio and Rs. 250/- cash. 16. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. 250/- cash. 16. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has made observations, with regard to the powers of an appellate Court while dealing with an order of acquittal of a subordinate Court. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “1. An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 2. The Cr.P.C. puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. 3. Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. 4. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the Accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. 5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17. On a thorough perusal of the evidences placed on the record; the testimonies of the witnesses, especially the testimonies of the medical officers, the medical report so generated by them, and looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrappa (supra), this Court finds that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order of acquittal. And that the impugned judgment therefore, deserves to affirmed and upheld. 18. And that the impugned judgment therefore, deserves to affirmed and upheld. 18. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Court below is upheld, and consequently, the present criminal appeal fails. 19. The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, all pending applications, if any, is disposed of.