NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
(SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma)
Reserved on 3-10-2018
Delivered on 29-10-2018
CRA No. 178 of 2010
• Radhekrishna Jaiswal @ Radheshyam s/o. Kanti Prasad Jaiswal,
aged 38 years r/o. Village Bhaiswar, PS Sonhat, District Koria
(CG).
—- Appellant.
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through -Police Station Sonhat, District
Koria (CG).
—- Respondent
———————————————————————————————
For Appellant :` Mr. D.N. Prapati, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, PL.
———————————————————————————————
CAV Judgment
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 6-3-2010 passed by the Sessions
Judge, Koria (Baikunthpur) (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 108 of
2007 wherein the said Court convicted the accused/appellant for
commission of offence under Sections 376, 506 (1) and 342 of
IPC 1860 and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and
fine of Rs.500, RI for one year and RI for one year with default
stipulations.
2
2. As per prosecution case, on 21-8-2007 at about 6.15 pm the
prosecutrix lodged a report alleging that at about 3.00 pm, she
went to the shop of the appellant for purchasing oil, soap, and
other things along with one Raj Kumari Pando. It is alleged that
the appellant took her forcibly to his house and committed rape
on her. The matter was investigated and the appellant was
charge-sheeted. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted
the appellant as mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
i) FIR is lodged for commission of offence under
sections 342 and 354 of the IPC which is signed
by the prosecutrix in which it is nowhere
mentioned that rape has been committed against
her.
ii) After consultation, she improved her version
after two days in her statement recorded before
the Investigating Officer in which she has stated
that rape has been committed against her by the
appellant.
iii) The trial Court has not considered the evidence
of PW/4, Smt. Rajkumari, PW/5, Lagansayi,
PW/6 Mahendra Singh, PW/7 Balkaran Rajwade,
PW/9 Mangal Sai and PW/11 Jhawar Dhan Kujur
who turned hostile and have not supported the
prosecution case.
3
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the
impugned judgment submits that the finding of the trial Court is
based on proper marshaling of evidence and the same is not
liable to be disturbed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the State, perused the
judgment impugned and record of the trial court.
6. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as
17 witnesses. In the present case, prosecutrix is PW/1 who is
aged about 25 years. Though she deposed in examination-in-
chief that rape was committed on her, but she admitted in her
cross examination (para 3) while reporting the matter to Police
Station that she did not narrate the story of rape. From FIR
(Ex.P/1), it appears that report was lodged under Sections 342
and 354 of IPC for outraging modesty of the prosecutrix. In this
way, she improved her version and narrated different story.
Other witnesses namely Manmati (PW/2), Fulmatiya (PW/3 and
Balkaran (PW/8) are hearsay witnesses who received
information about the incident.
7. Now the point for consideration of this court is whether hearsay
evidence is admissible in evidence and can be acted upon. In
Kalyan Kumar Gagoi vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri
4
reported in (2011) 2 SCC 532, Hon’ble the Supreme
Court has held as under:
“(a) the person giving such evidence does not
feel any responsibility. The law requires all
evidence to be given under personal
responsibility, i.e., every witness must give his
testimony, under such circumstance, as
expose him to all the penalties of falsehood. If
the person giving hearsay evidence is
cornered, he has a line of escape by saying “I
do not know, but so and so told me”,
(b) truth is diluted and diminished with each
repetition and
(c) if permitted, gives ample scope for playing
fraud by saying “someone told me that………..”.
It would be attaching importance to false
rumour flying from one foul lip to another.
Thus statement of witnesses based on
information received from others is
inadmissible”.
8. The only evidence which is legally admissible evidence is the
statement of the prosecutrix, but her statement is not of sterling
quality. On the date of reporting of the matter she did not narrate
about the commission of rape whereas before the trial Court she
narrated different story. When story of rape is not narrated just
after the incident, the other story can be accepted only when it is
explained that earlier version was stated due to convincing
reason, but from her statement it is not clear as to why she did
not narrate the story of rape. She plainly says that due to threat
of the appellant she did not narrate story of rape. She was fearful
5of threat but it is clear that when the fear is removed from her
mind, therefore, story of fear cannot be acted upon. The other
witnesses are hearsay witnesses. As the hearsay evidence is
inadmissible in evidence, it cannot be acted upon. If hearsay
evidence is excluded from the entire evidence, there is nothing
on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question.
Though the medical evidence supported the factum of
intercourse with the prosecutrix but the expert opinion is not
substantive piece of evidence for answering the crime in
question. It can be used in support of substantial evidence but
independently it cannot be used to link the appellant for
commission of offence. It is settled principle of law that “graver
the offence, stricter the proof”. It is also settled that there is long
mental distance between “may be true and must be true”. The
prosecution has to establish is case in the category of must be
true for criminal liability. The prosecution has not established its
case on the touchstone of strict proof. Looking to unstability of
the prosecutrix, her version cannot be acted upon, therefore,
charges under Sections 376, 506 Part 1 and 342 of IPC are not
established. The finding arrived at by the trial Court is not
sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence
imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is hereby set aside.
6
The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 376, 506
Part 1 and 342 of the IPC. The appellant is reported to be on
bail. His bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months
in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Raju