Rumal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 16 February, 2018

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.

(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

punishable under Section 376 IPC, Section 511 IPC and Section

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

first instance.

(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

punishable under Section 376/511 IPC and 10 years for the

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

Supreme Court.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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