HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 727 / 2013
Rumal Singh S/o Roshan Singh, By caste Bheel, Resident of
Karkara, P.S.Aklera, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.)
(At present confined in District Jail, Jhalawar (Raj.)
State Of Rajasthan Through PP
For Appellant(s) : None present.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.N.Sandu, AAG/Public Prosecutor.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(1) It is a matter of concern that lawyers are not appearing
in final hearing matters.
(2) Be that as it may, with the assistance of Mr. B.N.Sandu,
learned AAG appearing for the State I have perused the trial Court
record and have gone through the impugned judgment dated
03.10.2013. The appellant has been convicted for the offence
306 IPC. The conviction rests on the testimony of Bherulal, P.W.2,
Draupdi Bai, P.W.3 and Surendra, P.W.7. The forensic evidence
relied upon is Exhibit-P/16. The forensic report concerning the
viscera of the deceased as per which Organochloro insecticide was
detected. The cause of death of the deceased was obviously the
insecticide which she had consumed. The postmortem report
Ex.P-1 opines that the cause of death was respiratory arrest.
(2 of 5)
(3) The process of criminal law was set into motion when
statement Ex.P-2 was recorded at the police station on
25.08.2012. The maker of the statement is Bherulal. He is the
father of the deceased. In the statement Ex.P-2, Bherulal
disclosed that he is the father of five daughters and three sons.
The deceased aged 16 years was his unmarried daughter. His wife
Draupdi Bai was in his company at 10-11 A.M in their field. A boy
named Surendra, aged 15-16 years, who was a student of Class
Xth came to the field and informed him that he had seen the
appellant and his daughter in a remote place in the village and
both of them were talking. At that very moment his daughter
came to the field and all of a sudden started vomiting. He and his
wife got the daughter to their house where his daughter died and
at that time froth was oozing from her mouth.
(4) Relevant would it be to highlight that since in the
statement Ex.P-2 it was not informed that Surendra told the
informant that the appellant was having forcible sex against the
daughter of the informant, in the inquest proceedings opinion of
the doctor was not sought on whether there was any rape
committed on the deceased. This explains the postmortem report
Ex.P-1 simply recording that the cause of death was respiratory
(5) Appearing as P.W.2, Bherulal stated that the deceased
aged 14-15 years was unmarried. On 25.08.2012 he and his wife
were working in their field Surendra son of his brother-in-law
came and told him that his daughter and the appellant were seen
by him near the bushes nearby. On seeing Surendra, appellant ran
(3 of 5)
away. Surendra realised that the appellant had raped his daughter.
His daughter came to the field and fell down. He was working at a
little distance away. His daughter stated that the appellant had
raped her. He and his wife removed their daughter to the house.
She died on the way. Confronted with his statement Ex.P-2 where
there was an omission regarding any dying declaration made by
the daughter that the appellant had raped her the witness failed to
give an answer and the learned trial Court has recorded that on
this question, pertaining to the omission, the witness gave no
(6) Draupdi Bai, P.W.3, wife of Bherulal deposed in sync
with her husband and claimed that their daughter told them that
the appellant had raped her when the couple was working in the
field and the daughter came to the field.
(7) Surendra has deposed as P.W.7. He stated that on the
day of incident when he was going towards the fields, he saw the
appellant and the deceased in the company of each other near a
hillock and that the appellant was forcing himself on the deceased.
The deceased was shouting. He proceeded to rescue the
deceased. He tried to catch hold of the appellant who ran away.
He saw the appellant committing rape on the deceased. As he
was trying to catch the appellant the deceased walked away.
(8) Regretfully, the impugned decision has overlooked the
critical feature being the statement Ex.P-2 of Bheru which form
the basis of the criminal investigation commencing.
(9) As noted hereinabove in Ex.P-2 Bherulal simply said
that Surendra informed him and his wife of having seen the
(4 of 5)
appellant and his daughter in the company of each other. Had
Surendra seen the appellant commit rape upon the deceased and
had he tried to catch him as he claimed while deposing as witness
of the prosecution he would have informed the said fact to
Bherulal who would have so disclosed to the police. The stated
dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W.2 and P.W.3 are a
material improvement over what P.W.2 informed the police at the
(10) For the reason the inquest proceedings were motivated
by the statement Ex.P-2 there is no evidence in the postmortem
report of the deceased, of any form of rape. It is only on
29.08.2012 that Bheru Lal and Draupdi, the parents of the
deceased made the statements which were mirrored by the two
when they deposed as the witnesses of the prosecution in the
(11) The parents of the deceased are not a witness to the
rape. As per them their daughter told that she was raped by the
appellant but this is missing in Ex.P-2. Had the deceased made a
statement that the cause for her to consume the
pesticide/insecticide was she being raped by the appellant it would
have been so mentioned by Bheru Lal in his statement Ex.P-2.
(12) It also assumes importance that the statement of the
three star witnesses was recorded on 29.08.2012 much after
Bherulal’s first statement was recorded by the police on
(13) The appellant would thus be entitled to the benefit of
doubt. The appeal succeeds. Impugned judgment and order dated
(5 of 5)
03.10.2013 convicting the appellant is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charges framed against him. The sentence
imposed upon the appellant being 5 years RI for the offence
offence under Section 306 IPC are quashed.
(14) In view of above, I order that the appellant be released
forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case.
(15) Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section
437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant is directed
to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of `10,000/-, and
surety bond of the like amount, before the trial Court. The bonds
so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The
bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of
Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave,
the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the