State Of Rajasthan vs Kishore Singh on 7 June, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

..

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 551 / 1994.

The State of Rajasthan
—-Appellant
Versus
Kishore Singh S/o Himmat Singh, b/c Rajput, r/o Dholiya, Police

Station Rajgarh, District Churu.

—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment
07/06/2017

BY THE COURT:

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(iii) (i) Cr.P.C. has

been preferred on behalf of the appellant – State of Rajasthan

being aggrieved with the judgment dated 01.06.1994 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Churu [Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities), Churu] (hereinafter to be referred as

‘the trial Court’) whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the

accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376

IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi) 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the
(2 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

to be referred as ‘the Act of 1989’).

2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State

of Rajasthan has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred

in acquitting the accused/respondent for the charges for which he

was charged. It is argued that from the statement of the

prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo and from the statement of witnesses

PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand,l it is proved that on

17.09.1991 at about 4:00 pm, the accused/respondent has

committed rape upon the prosecutrix, who belongs to the

Scheduled Caste. It is contended that the prosecutrix PW-4 Mst.

Rajo in her statement has categorically stated that when she was

working in the field on the day of incident, the accused/

respondent came there and dragged her for 50-60 feet and

thereafter has forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further

argued that PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deep Chand have

witnessed the incident and they have also stated before the

learned trial Court that on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix,

they reached at the agricultural field of Shrichand where the

READ  Uttara Ghanti And Ors.-vs-State Of West Bengal on 11 June, 2007

prosecutrix was working. They found that the accused/respondent

was lying on the prosecutrix and on seeing them, he ran from

there. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the

Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, has found

that the allegation of rape levelled against the accused/respondent

was proved. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued

that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charges levelled
(3 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]

against the accused/respondent for which he was charged,

however, the learned trial Court, without taking into consideration

the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective, has

acquitted the accused/respondent for the charges for which he

was charged.

3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Gupta appearing for

the accused/respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed

to prove the charges against the accused/respondent by producing

cogent and reliable evidence and, therefore, the learned trial

Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused/

respondent and no illegality has been committed in passing the

impugned judgment by the learned trial Court. It is also argued by

the learned counsel for the accused/respondent that as a matter

of fact, the relationship between the prosecutirx and the accused/

respondent were consensual and as such, it cannot be said that

the accused/respondent has committed rape upon the prosecutirx.

Learned counsel for the accused/respondent has prayed that the

instant appeal filed by the State may kindly be dismissed while

maintaining the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

carefully scrutinized the record of the case.

5. FIR No. 205/1991 was registered at Police Station Rajgarh,

District Churu on 18.09.1991 against the accused/respondent for
(4 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]

the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/11

of the Act of 1989. In the FIR, it was alleged that when the

prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo was working in the agricultural field of

Shrichand Jat on 17.09.1991, at about 4:00 pm, the

READ  An Application For Bail Under ... vs In Re:- Debasish Maity on 17 May, 2017

accused/respondent came into the field and has caught hold of her

and dragged her for about 50-60 feet and thereafter forcibly

committed rape upon her. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the

prosecutirx has raised cries and on hearing this, PW-5 Deepchand

came there and on seeing him, the accused/respondent ran away

from the sport. The Police, after investigating into the allegations

levelled in the FIR, has filed charge-sheet against the

accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376

IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi) 3(ii)(v) of the Act of 1989. The learned

trial Court has also framed charges against the

accused/respondent for the aforesaid offences. However, the

accused/respondent has denied the charges and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution has produced as many as 10 witnesses to

prove the charges levelled against the accused/ respondent. Out

of those 10 witnesses, two witnesses, namely, PW-1 Chandgi Ram

and PW-5 Deepchand were termed as eye-witnesses of the

incident. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-4. The learned

trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of PW-1

Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand and has come to the

conclusion that in the FIR, the prosecutrix has not stated that PW-

1 Chandgi Ram also reached at the spot after hearing her cries.

(5 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]

7. The learned trial Court has observed that enmity between

the accused/respondent and PW-1 Chandgi Ram is admitted by

PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand. The trial Court has also

observed that even if it is assumed that PW-1 Chandgi Ram and

PW-5 Deepchand have witnessed the incident then also, the

accused/respondent cannot be held guilty for the commission of

rape upon the prosecutrix as both the witnesses have stated that

when they reached at the sport then they found that the

accused/respondent was lying on the prosecutrix and on seeing

them, he ran away from there.

8. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of the

prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo in detail and has observed that the

READ  Sri Rajappa @ Munirajappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2017

prosecutrix has not named PW-1 Chandgi Ram as an eye-

witnesses of the incident in the FIR but in her Court statements,

she has stated that PW-1 Chandgi Ram has also witnessed the

incident. The learned trial Court has further observed that the

prosecutrix has stated in her Court statements that after caught

hold of her, the accused/respondent has dragged her for about 50-

60 feet and thereafter forcibly committed rape upon her. The trial

Court is of the opinion that the said version of the prosecutrix

cannot be believed because as per the medical report, no injury

on the body of the prosecutrix was found during the course of her

medical examination. The trial Court has further taken into

consideration the statement of the prosecutrix wherein, she has

specifically stated that during the commission of rape by the

accused/respondent, she hugged him. The learned trial Court is
(6 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]

of the opinion that if the accused/respondent was committing rape

upon the prosecutrix, she could have resisted as the prosecutrix is

fully grown up lady of 30 years and it cannot be expected from

her that when the accused/respondent was committing rape upon

her, she has hugged her.

9. After discussing the evidence of the prosecutrix in detail, the

learned trial Court has opined that there is all possibility that the

relationship between the accused/ respondent and the prosecutrix

were consensual and on account of enmity of the

accused/respondent with PW-1 Chandgi Ram, a false case has

been registered against him.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is of the

opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court,

while acquitting the accused/respondent for the charges, are not

liable to be interfered with. Hence, there is no force in this appeal

preferred by the appellant-State and, therefore, the same is

dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.

/Mohan/H-44

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *