CRA-S-533-SB-2004 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRA-S-533-SB-2004
Date of Decision: 22.02.2018
Nand Lal …..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ……Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rahul Rathore, DAG, Punjab.
****
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J
The appellant has been convicted under Section 452 and
Section 354 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years along
with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 452 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment
for 1 ½ years along with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 354 IPC both the
sentence were to run concurrently. The Additional Sessions Judge had tried
and convicted the appellant in a complaint case.
Following facts emerge from the record:-
A complaint was filed in the Court on 25.05.2001. The
allegations made by the complainant were that the accused was her
husband’s friend. Six months earlier he had got himself photographed with
her in connivance with a photographer while attending a function. She did
not come to know of it then but the photograph was used to blackmail her
and he wanted to develop illicit relations.
1 of 7
04-03-2018 17:57:28 :::
CRA-S-533-SB-2004 -2-
Narrating the incident, which occurred on 18.05.2001, the
complainant had stated that she was home about 1-1.30 p.m. and her
husband has gone to the fields for labour work. The accused entered her
house armed with a air gun. On seeing her alone, he started grappling with
her, lifted her and threw her on a cot and raped her without her consent
when she raised alarm she was gagged and her dupatta was stuffed in her
mouth. She had stated that the string of salwar was broken and her shirt was
torn. She was abused and he claimed that he would keep her as his wife and
also threatened to kill her if the incident were narrated to anyone. It was
further disclosed that while the accused was raping her, her mother-in-law
and her devar-Het Ram and some villagers came and on seeing them, the
accused fled away. Her husband returned in the evening and the incident
was narrated to him. The matter was reported to the police on the same day.
They also sent a telegram to the Senior Police Officer and to the Chief
Justice of the High Court. It was claimed that the police failed to take action
on the complaint and therefore the complaint was filed in the Court of Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka.
Preliminary evidence was recorded and the accused was
summoned.
Charge was framed under Sections 376/452 and 506 IPC. The
prosecution examined Birma, her Devar, her mother-in-law and Charan
Singh. The accused in his 313 statement denied the incriminating evidence
and stated that he used to run a Karyana shop and the prosecutrix had been
purchasing goods from him and she owed money and she did not want to
pay that amount and therefore she had filed the false complaint.
2 of 7
04-03-2018 17:57:30 :::
CRA-S-533-SB-2004 -3-
The trial Court believed the statement of the prosecutrix so far
as the charges under Sections 354 and 452 IPC were concerned but rejected
the statement of the victim with respect to the charges under Section 376
IPC. It found her version to be improbable and the details are given in Para
12 and 13 of the judgment.
I have heard both the sides.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the story
put forward by the complainant is concocted and it is improbable that there
was no one in the street and could a man enter the house in broad day light
and commit rape, when dever and mother-in-law live in the same house
though there is a partition wall just 6 feet high. It was urged that the mother-
in-law turned hostile as she did not support the prosecution version and she
had not seen the accused committing rape. It was urged that the other two
persons had only seen a person running in the street and the statement of the
complainant had been disbelieved with respect to rape. It was urged that
there are contradiction in the statement of witnesses and there is no
explanation as to why they had not gone to the hospital or to the police the
same day. It was urged that Het Ram (PW-3) had stated that they had gone
to the police station at about 4.00 pm and the police had registered the case
and had arrested the accused and he remained in custody for 10 days but the
complainant could not show that any complaint of rape had been given to
the police nor its copy was produced and the complaint had been filed on
25.05.2001. It was urged that the entire statement is falsehood. Referring to
the statement of Charan Singh, he urges that there was a Dharamshala in
front of the complainant’s house and people usually sit there during the day
and if the complainant was crying for help, there would have been some
3 of 7
04-03-2018 17:57:30 :::
CRA-S-533-SB-2004 -4-
persons who would have chased and caught hold of the accused. It was
urged that the trial Court had disbelieved the story of rape and it should
have rejected the entire statements as the evidence was neither convincing
nor believable and full of improbabilities.
The State counsel supported the judgment of the trial Court and
had urged that the statement of the victim was rightly accepted and no
woman would make a false complaint and no evidence was led by the
accused to show that he was running a Karyana shop.
The complaint mentions that the accused had managed to get
himself photographed with her about 6 months ago with the help of a
photographer. The complainant had disclosed that he was wanting to be
intimate with her and entered her house around 1 p.m. In the Court the
complainant made a different statement. She stated that the photograph had
been taken about 5/10 days prior to the occurrence. She had stated that she
did not make any complaint to the police that he was using the photographs
nor she had approached any member Panchayat. She stated that her husband
had approached a member Panchayat who had requested the accused to
return the photographs but he refused. The police did not recover any
photograph.
The complainant in her cross-examination had accepted the fact
that the accused was running a karyana shop. She had stated that the
accused was married and had 3 children. She had stated that her eldest child
was 8 years old. She had deposed that her Uncle Arjun lives on one side of
her house while her devar and mother-in-law live in the house on the other
side with a partition wall in between. She had stated that Jogi – Uncle of the
accused, has a Karyana Shop in front of their house and people usually visit
4 of 7
04-03-2018 17:57:30 :::
CRA-S-533-SB-2004 -5-
that shop to make purchases. She stated that she did not know whether the
accused was carrying a toy gun or a real gun. She stated that the accused
called out her husband’s name from outside and when she disclosed that he
was not in, that he entered the house.
The trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of the
complainant so far the as the allegations of rape are concerned, it noted that
there was no medical evidence nor the matter was promptly reported to the
police. The complainant failed to even go to the hospital for her medical.
The complainant failed to produce the copy of the complaint given to the
police. She was mainly relying upon telegrams given to the Senior Officers
but only the postal receipt is available. The complaint filed in the Court is
typed and was filed through a lawyer. The complainant had access to the
legal recourse and had approached the Court within 8 days. What is
surprising is as to why a written complaint could not be given to the police
and why no medical was done? The trial Court had rightly rejected the
statement of the complainant with respect to the allegations of rape.
On going through the statements of Charan Singh and Het Ram
it becomes clear that the house of the complainant is in a busy area. The
neighbouring houses are occupied by her own family members. The 8 year
old son of the complainant was present in the house, he was not confined.
He did not even run out nor the relatives staying close saw or heard
anything. It makes the version improbable. No one had caught the accused
running way though the witnesses claim that they heard the shrieks and the
cries of the complainant. The witnesses had made a false statement when
they had stated that the police had registered the FIR and the accused had
been detained for 10-12 days. The prosecution could not produce any
5 of 7
04-03-2018 17:57:30 :::
CRA-S-533-SB-2004 -6-
evidence in this regard.
According to the complainant her mother-in-law was the first
person who reached there. Her statement makes an interesting reading. She
stated that she was sitting in her house when she heard some noise. She
stated that accused grappled with her daughter-in-law and when she
reached the house of the daughter-in-law she did not see the accused as he
had already run away and she did not see anything else. That is the only
statement made by her. She did not see any torn clothes. The complainant
came out immediately and she was wearing clothes. The trial Court had
doubted that version because if the string of the Salwar had been broken,
she could not have come out of the house immediately wearing the same set
of clothes.
The story put forward by the complainant and her witnesses is
not convincing nor probable. The complainant and her husband is said to
have contacted a member Panchayat with respect to the photographs. There
was no reason why they did not contact the Member Panchayat and seek
help when police was not cooperating. There are serious contradictions in
the statements of the witnesses with respect to the time when they had gone
to report the matter to the police. It is easy to make allegations but is
difficult to prove. The trial Court should have rejected the entire statement
in entirety when it found that the allegations of rape were false. The
complainant had a reason to make a complaint. The evidence led by the
accused appears to be more probable. The complainant had admitted that the
accused was running a karyana shop. Probably she owed some amount and
was not paying which led to a dispute.
6 of 7
04-03-2018 17:57:30 :::
CRA-S-533-SB-2004 -7-
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by
the trial Court are set aside and the accused is acquitted.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
JUDGE
February 22, 2018
ps-I
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
04-03-2018 17:57:30 :::