HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 953 / 2015
Sadhu Ram s/o Noora Ram b/c Bazigar R/o Chak 36LLW Tehsil
Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
—-Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Inderjeet @ Gurpratap Singh s/o Mohan Singh b/c Majbisikh
R/o ward no 1 Sadhawali Kaat PS Keshari Singh pur District Sri
Ganganagar
3. Paramjeet Kaur @ Basso w/o Chinderpal d/o Kalu Ram b/c
Bazigar R/o ward no 12 Kesharisingh Pur now chak 36 LLW Gram
Panchayat Kahnewala PS Goluwala District Hanumangarh
—-Respondents
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr.RS Gill.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.RK Bohra, PP, Mr.Rakesh Matoria
Mr.Shardul Bishnoi.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
22/08/2017
Final arguments have been heard with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
By way of this victim’s appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., the
appellant complainant has approached this Court for challenging
the judgment dated 19.5.2015 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.12/2014 whereby, the
accused respondents no.2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges
(2 of 6)
under Sections 376, 376/120B and 384 IPC and simultaneously,
the trial Judge directed that the currency notes to the tune of
Rs.1,60,000/- recovered from the accused Inderjeet Singh shall
be handed over to the complainant while the mobile recovered
from Inderjeet Singh shall be handed over to him.
Facts in brief are that the appellant complainant submitted a
complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga
alleging inter alia that his minor daughter Sushri M. aged 16 years
used to frequently visit her sister-in-law Paramjeet Kaur’s house.
Taking advantage of immaturity of the girl, Paramjeet Kaur
introduced her to Inderjeet Singh and frequently facilitated their
meetings. Two days before Deepawali i.e. on 1.11.2013 Paramjeet
Kaur called the girl to her house where Inderjeet Singh was sitting
from before. Paramjeet Kaur left the girl in the room with
Inderjeet Singh and went out. Inderjeet Singh fraudulently
induced the girl into having sexual relations and took her indecent
pictures with his mobile. The girl was threatened that in case she
told of the incident to anybody, her indecent photographs would
be made public. Paramjeer Kaur connived with Inderjeet Singh
and fraudulently extorted a sum of nearly Rs.4 lakhs lying in the
complainant’s house from the girl. When the amount could not be
traced out, the complainant initiated an inhouse enquiry on which
his daughter told him that the amount had been taken by
Paramjeet Kaur. The complainant confronted Paramjeet Kaur with
these facts upon which she confessed her guilt. This complaint
was forwarded to P.S. Goluwala for investigation where FIR
(3 of 6)
No.333/2013 was registered and investigation commenced. During
the course of investigation, accused Inderjeet Singh was arrested
and in furtherance of information supplied by him to I.O. under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, currency notes to the tune of
Rs.1,60,000/- were recovered from his house. The mobile phone
was also recovered, however, it was not found to contain any
indecent photographs of the victim. Accused Paramjeet Kaur was
also arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
accused Inderjeet Singh for the offences under Sections 376 and
384 IPC and against Paramjeet Kaur for the offences under
Sections 376/120B and 384 IPC and charges were framed against
them in the same terms. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of
its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313
Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations. The accused Inderjeet
Singh submitted that the police pressurized and coerced him to
sell his house and got recovered the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in
this manner. Paramjeet Kaur stated that the complainant was
bearing illwill towards her family. His daughter had eloped on her
own and she was falsely implicated in the case owing to enmity.
Learned trial Court upon concluding the trial held that the
testimony of the prosecutrix PW11 Sushri M. was totally
unreliable. She was confronted with her previous statement
Ex.D/4 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. in which there was no allegation that any indecent
photographs were snapped by Inderjeet Singh. It was further held
(4 of 6)
that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to prove that the
girl was a minor on the date of incident. The trial Court further
held that the story put forth by the prosecution in its evidence
that Paramjeet Kaur was called to clean the house of the
complainant and she managed to see the currency notes lying
there in a box was farfetched and unbelievable. The complainant’s
house did not have any electric connection and yet he claimed
that a huge sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was lying in a box in such a
dilapidated house. A grave contradiction existed in the sworn
statement of the prosecutrix and the one recorded during
investigation regarding the manner in which the money was taken
away. Whilst, in the police statement Ex.D/5, she stated that she
herself took out the currency notes to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-
from the box and gave the same to Inderjeet Singh, but on the
contrary, in the sworn testimony, she alleged that the accused
snatched the key of the box from her and forcible took away the
amount. The incident of the alleged forcibly intercourse allegedly
took place at about 1 O’ clock in the afternoon. Despite
opportunity being available, the prosecutrix did not raise any hue
and cry during the alleged sexual assault. The trial Court held and
rightly so in the opinion of this Court that admittedly, the
photographs of the prosecutrix allegedly snapped by Inderjeet
Singh were not indecent and hence, there was no occasion for her
to feel threatened by such photographs and consequently, the
non-disclosure of the alleged incident by the prosecutrix to her
father created a grave doubt on the truthfulness of her story. The
(5 of 6)
FIR was lodged after 1½ months of the incident and this fact too
was held to create a significant doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution allegations. The prosecution did not lead any evidence
regarding age of the prosecutrix. PW10 Dr.Vijay Singh Punia who
conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix with the other
members of the Board found her to be habituated to sexual
intercourse and opined that she was above 18 years of age. The
prosecutrix alleged to be familiar to the accused Inderjeet Singh
for two years frequently talked to him. Consequently, the trial
Court held that the prosecutrix and Inderjeet Singh were having
intimate relations. The prosecutrix emphatically claimed in her
statement that the alleged act of sexual intercourse committed by
Inderjeet Singh upon her was the first incident of her being
penetrated. However, the medical evidence indicated that she was
habitual to sexual intercourse. In this background, the trial Court
held that the relations, if any, between the prosecutrix and the
accused Inderjeet Singh were consensual and proceeded to acquit
the accused of the charges.
Having appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned
judgment as well as record, I am of the firm opinion that the
impugned judgment is based on absolutely impeccable
appreciation of evidence to the extent the accused were acquitted
of the charges. The grave contradictions spelt out in the
prosecution evidence clearly establish that the case involves
consensual relations between two major persons viz., prosecutrix
(6 of 6)
and Inderjeet Singh. Consequently, there is no reason for this
Court to interfere in the impugned judgment while entertaining
this victim’s appeal against acquittal.
As an upshot of the above discussion, the instant appeal is
hereby dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
S.Phophaliya/-