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/-