SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of H.P vs Deepak Chand on 9 August, 2018


Cr. Appeal No. 4165 of 2013
Reserved on : 02.08.2018


Decided on: 09.08.2018.

State of H.P. …Appellant.

Deepak Chand …Respondent.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.

For the Appellant
r : toMr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Dy. A.G.

For the Respondent : Mr. Nimish Gupta and Mr. Mohar Singh,
Advocates, for the respondent.


Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the

offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short IPC), the State has filed the instant appeal.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on

11.06.2004 the prosecutrix (PW1) filed a complaint with the

Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, wherein allegations of rape

was leveled against the respondent. It was alleged that she was

employed as water-carrier in the Government Primary School,

Swahal and, on 05.05.2004, while returning from the school after

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP

getting salary, then at about 1:00 p.m., the respondent accosted

her and later on raped her. He also threatened to kill her if she


disclosed the facts to any person.

3. This complaint was marked to SHO, Sujanpur, who

after holding inquiry filed a cancellation report Ext. PW8/D.

However dis-satisifed, the prosecutrix moved an application

Ext.PW1/C to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur on

02.06.2004 and upon this FIR Ext. PW8/C was registered and the

case came to be investigated.

4. On completion of the investigation, final report was

presented in the Court on the basis of which charges came to be

framed against the accused on 02.07.2008, for having

committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of

the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. On conclusion of the trial, the respondent was

convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge vide his

judgment/order dated 22.07.2008. However, on appeal having

been preferred against the said judgment/order, the conviction

and sentence was set aside by this Court vide order dated

06.11.2012 and the case was remanded to the Sessions Judge

with a specific direction that the respondent be permitted to lead

evidence to prove the attendance register of the Government

Primary School Swahal, especially, for the month of May, 2004

10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP

and thereafter to confront the prosecutrix and another witness

(PW5) with the said register.


6. It shall be apposite to refer to the relevant portion of

the judgment/order, which reads thus:-

“3. The accused appellant, by means of Cr.M.P. No. 661 of

2012, has filed an application seeking permission to lead
additional evidence. The accused appellant has obtained
the copies of the attendance registers of the prosecutrix
from the Government Primary School, Sawahal and we are

concerned with the attendance register for the month of
May, 2004. As per this register, the salary was paid to the
prosecutrix on 3 rd May, 2004 and 5 th May, 2004 was a

holiday being ” Budh Purnima”. As observed earlier, the

complaint was filed more than three weeks later on 11 th
June, 2004.

4. To satisfy ourselves, we had called for the original

attendance register and we find that the photo copies are
true copies of the original register. We, at this stage, are
not going into the question whether these registers are

properly maintained or not and whether the register depicts
the true state of affairs, but the appellant has definitely

made out a case for leading additional evidence because if
he proves that the entries in this register are correct, then

the very basis of the story put up by the prosecutrix would
be totally false. Liberty of a citizen is at stake and the
additional evidence sought to be placed on record is the
registers maintained in a Government School and cannot
be lightly brushed aside.

5. In view of the above discussion, we allow the application
and permit the appellant to first prove the entries in the
registers and thereafter to confront the prosecutrix and PW-
5 with these registers. Since we are allowing the
application, obviously the result is that the conviction of the

10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP

accusedappellant has to be set aside. The appeal is
accordingly allowed and the conviction of the accused –
appellant is set aside and the matter is remanded to the


learned trial Court with the specific direction that the

appellant shall be permitted to lead evidence to prove the
attendance registers of Government Primary School,
Sawahal, District Hamirpur, especially for the month of

May, 2004 and thereafter, confront the prosecutrix PW5
with the said registers.

6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the matter is

remanded back to the learned trial Court, who shall
endeavour to dispose of the same at the earliest and in any
event not later than 31st January, 2013. The appellant is

directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge,
Hamirpur, on 22nd November, 2012. The Registry is

directed to ensure that the record is sent back immediately
so as to reach the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, by
22nd November, 2012.

7. Since we have acquitted the accused and he was on bail
during trial and has now made out a reasonable case that

he may be acquitted, we direct that the accused be
enlarged on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.

20,000/ with one surety in the like amount undertaking to
appear before the learned trial Court as directed
hereinabove. He shall further undertake to appear before

the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing
and as and when called upon to do so.”

7. Learned Court below after recording evidence and

evaluating the same, acquitted the respondent constraining the

State to file the instant appeal.

10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP

8. It is in the aforesaid background that the entire

prosecution evidence led prior or subsequent to the remand has


to be closely scrutnised.

9. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate

General for the appellant – State has vehemently argued that

the findings returned by the learned trial court are perverse,

inasmuch it has not appreciated statements of the prosecutrix

and other witnesses examined by the prosecutrix in its right

perspective, therefore, reached at a wrong conclusion.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Nimish Gupta and Mr. Mohar

Singh, learned counsels for the respondent have supported the

judgment of acquittal on the ground that the same has been

passed after taking into consideration the entire facts as also

appreciating the law on the subject.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have gone through the material on record of the case carefully.

11. It is now well settled principle of law that conviction

can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, unless

there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. It is also

equally settled that corroboration as a condition for judicial

reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement

of law but a guidance of prudence under the given

circumstances. (Refer: State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh

(1996) 2 SCC 384, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha

10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP

Ram AIR 2006 SC 381, Rajinder Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh, (2009) 16 SCC 69.) However, it has to be borne in


mind that a case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt as any other case and there is no presumption

that the prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully.

12. In Rajoo Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008)

15 SCC 133, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the

testimony of a victim of rape has to be treated as if she is an

injured witness but cannot be presumed to be a gospel truth. It

was held that:

“9. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle
that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be
suspect and should be believed, the more so as her
statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured

witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is
necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must

carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with
them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and

mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual
assault which comes before the Court. It cannot be lost sight
of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to

the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape
can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the
accused as well. The accused must also be protected against
the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large
number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in
mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was
present at the time when the incident happened and that
ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual
assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for
assuming that the statement of such a witness is always

10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP

correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.
Reference has been made in Gurmit Singh’s case to the
amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the India


Penal Code making the penal provisions relating to rape

more stringent, and also to Section 114A of the Evidence Act
with respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to
allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape. It is

however significant that Sections 113A and 113B too were
inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by
which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide
and dowry death have been raised against the accused.

These two Sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour
of the
prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape

is visualized as the presumption under Section 114A is

extremely restricted in its applicability. This clearly shows
that in so far as allegations of rape are concerned, the
evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined as that of an
injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it

can never be presumed that her
statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel
truth. Additionally her statement can, at best, be adjudged

on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell

a lie or implicate a person falsely. We believe that it is under
these principles that this case, and others such as this one,
need to be examined.”

13. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566, it was held as under:-

“7. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the
prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to
hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story
is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to
the very principles which govern the appreciation of
evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that
story is indeed improbable. …..”

10/08/2018 23:01:06 :::HCHP

14. In Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of MP, (2010) 3 SCC

323, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-


“10. Mr. C.D. Singh has however placed reliance on Moti Lal’s
case (supra) to contend that the evidence of the prosecutrix
was liable to be believed save in exceptional circumstances.

There can be no quarrel with this proposition (and it has
been so emphasised by this Court time and again) but to
hold that a prosecutrix must be believed irrespective of the
improbabilities in her story, is an argument that can never

be accepted. The test always is as to whether the given
story prima facie inspires confidence. We are of the opinion
that the present matter is indeed an exceptional one.”

15. In Abbas Ahmad Choudhary Vs. State of Assam,

2010 (12) SCC 115, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:-

“5. We are however, of the opinion that the involvement of

Abbas Ahmad Choudhary seems to be uncertain. It must first
be borne in mind that in hery statement recorded on 17th
September, 1997, the prosecutrix had not attributed any

rape to Abbas Ahmad Choudhary. Likewise, she had stated

that he was not one of those who kidnapped her and taken
to Jalalpur Tea Estate and on the other hand she
categorically stated that while she along with Mizazul Haq

and Ranju Das were returning to the village that he had
joined them somewhere along the way but had still not
committed rape on her. It is true that in her statement in
court she has attributed rape to Abbas Ahmad Choudhary as
well, but in the light of the aforesaid contradictions some
doubt is created with regard to his involvement. Some
corroboration of rape could have been found if Abbas
Ahmad Choudhary too had been apprehended and taken to
the police station by P.W. 5 – Ranjit Dutta the Constable. The
Constable, however, made a statement which was

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

corroborated by the Investigating Officer that only two of the
appellants Ranju Das and Md. Mizalul Haq along with the
prosecutrix had been brought to the police station as Abbas


Ahmad Choudhary had run away while en route to the police

station. Resultantly, an inference can be rightly drawn that
Abbas Ahmad Choudhary was perhaps not in the car when
the complainant and two of the appellants had been

apprehended by Constable Ranjit Dutta. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that the involvement of Abbas Ahmad
Choudhary is doubtful. We are conscious of the fact that in a
matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be

given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the
broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape

and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would

always tell the entire story truthfully.”

16. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT of

Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

commented about the quality of the sole testimony of the

prosecutrix, which would be made basis to convict the accused

and it was held:-

“15. In our considered opinion, the sterling witness should be of

a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore,
be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such
witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value
without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the
status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be
relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would be the
consistency of the statement right from the starting point till
the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural
and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version
of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to
withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever


strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give

room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version
should have correlation with each and everyone of other

supporting such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the
manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with
the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it

should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial
evidence where there should not be any missing link in the
chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence
alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness

qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to

be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a
sterling witness whose version can be accepted by the Court
without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be
punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on

the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all
other attendant
materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects

should match the said version in material particulars in order to
enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version

to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender
guilty of the charge alleged.”

17. Reverting to the facts, the prosecutrix appeared as

PW1 and stated that her husband died in the year 2000. She was

working as a water-carrier in the Government Primary School,

Swahal. On 05.05.2004, she had gone to Centre School Chabutra

to get salary. While returning from there at about 12:30-1:00 pm

she was stopped at Bharmeli and purchased some articles. She

kept some of the books in the shop, which she had brought from

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

the centre school. Then she proceeded towards her school.

There was a lonely jungle where respondent met her. He was


standing with the scooter on road side. He asked her to take lift

on the scooter and offered to drop her at the school but she

declined. The respondent then slapped her and pushed her on

the road side drain as a result whereof she sustained injuries on

her right knee. Then he dragged her from her legs and took her

downwards the road. She kept crying but he gagged her mouth

with her dupatta. She told him that he was like her son but he

removed her salwar and committed forcible sexual intercourse

with her by threatening her with knife and stated that in case

she disclosed this incident to any one he would kill her alongwith

her children. He then fled away from the spot. Then, she went to

the school and kept the books there and thereafter proceed to

her house. She further stated that she was under lot of tension

due to this incident and also because of the threat. So she was in

a fix whether to disclose about the incident to anyone or not.

She further claimed that she was worried about her children

being a lonely widow as her in-laws were residing separately

from her. After about 15-20 days, she went to the school where

the headmaster asked her to take the dak of the school, for

which she was again required to pass through the same lonely

jungle. The headmaster then persuaded her to disclose the

reason. Then, she moved the application Ext.PW1/A to

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur. The police investigated the

case and scolded her for giving late information. The police told


her that she may even lose her job for late reporting and they

forced her to write some paper to the effect that she had made

false allegations against the respondent. This document is

Ext.PW1/B, which according to the witnesses, was prepared

under pressure from the police officials. At that time, even the

Ward Panch Malkan Devi was also present there and had also

sided with the police officials. Thereafter she gave an application

Ext.PW1/C to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur and also

approached the local MLA, who telephoned the police to proceed

in the matter. The police had also got her medical examined and

as such MLC was signed by her. She identified her shirt Ext.P1,

Salwar Ext. P2 and underwear Ext.P3, which were shown to her

in the Court and stated that these clothes were handed over by

her to the police, which were taken into possession vide seizure

memo Ext. PW1/D, which was signed by her.

18. In cross-examination, this witness (PW1) admitted

that the respondent belongs to Naudan and two years prior to

this incident had settled in village Bind Palanhana. She further

stated that wife of the respondent is her niece and she knew the

respondent since his marriage. The marriage of respondent was

also attended by her. She denied the suggestion that she was

interested for settling the marriage of the respondent

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

somewhere else in her relation. She also denied the suggestion

that she was not on speaking terms with the respondent prior to


the incident. She denied that some quarrel had taken place

between her Dewar and the respondent and her relatives during

the marriage. She further stated that she had not disclosed

about the incident to any one before prior to informing the

headmaster. She further stated that she was dragged by the

accused upto a distance of 10-15 mtrs. There were stones and

bushes at that place. She again stated that she was dragged by

the respondent from her leg as a result whereof she had

sustained injuries on her right knee and on other parts of the

body. She denied that the respondent had not committed rape

with her.

19. After the case was remanded back by this Court, the

prosecutrix was again examined on 01.12.2012, wherein she

admitted that she had marked the presence in the attendance

register on arrival and departure from the school. She admitted

that Ext. DW1/A was the true copy of the attendance register for

the month of May, 2004 and she had signed twice on this at

Mark A Mark B, out of which one signature was regarding

arrival in school and second is regarding departure from the

school. She further admitted that in Ext.DW1/A, she had not

marked her presence in the attendance register w.e.f.

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

02.05.2004 to 05.05.2004 being Sunday, salary day and

holidays, respectively.


20. On the request of the prosecution, the prosecutrix

was again examined on 27.12.2017, wherein she deposed that

she had received salary on 05.05.2004 at Primary Centre School,

Chabutra. On being cross-examined, she stated that incident of

rape had taken place with her on 05.05.2004, while she was

coming back to school and she did not tell about this to the

headmaster because she was under threat from the respondent.

21. At this stage, we may make a note of the fact that as

per the statement of the prosecutrix, the incident in question is

alleged to have taken place on 05.05.2004, whereas she

reported the matter to the police for the first time on 11.06.2004

after more than one month through application Ext.PW1/A.

22. The prosecution has examined the mother-in-law of

the prosecutrix Smt. Salo Devi as PW3. However her testimony is

based on hearsay. The prosecution as thereafter examined Rikhi

Ram as PW4 whose testimony is again based on hearsay. Rather

the testimonies of both these witnesses are totally vague and

have, therefore, rightly been discarded by the learned court

below, as they have not even mentioned the date when the

prosecutrix had told them about the alleged incident.

23. That apart, in case the statement of PW4 is taken

into consideration, it reveals that the matter was disclosed to

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

him only after the complaint had already been made by the

prosecutrix to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur.


24. Evidently, there is a considerable delay in lodging of

the FIR. However, it is more than settled by now that delay in

lodging the FIR cannot be used as ritualistic formula for doubting

the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the

ground of the delay in lodging the FIR. Delay has the effect of

putting the court on its guard to search, if any, explanation has

been offered for delay and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or

not. If the prosecutrix fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and

there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on

account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the


However, if the delay is explained to the

satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground

for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.

25. Now, in case the complaint Ext.PW1/A is perused, it

would be noticed that it has been mentioned therein that the

prosecutirx could not report the matter earlier as she was all

alone in the house and had pain in her leg. However, when she

appeared in the Court as PW1 on 17.07.2008, she tried to

explain the delay by stating that she was under threat from the

respondent. She also stated that she was under tension and was

worried about the future of the children being widow. In other

wards, meaning thereby, that the prosecutrix had nowhere

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

deposed in the court that she could not report the matter earlier

to the police as she was all alone in her house and had pain in


her leg. The version put-forth by the prosecutrix assumes

significance in view of the defence evidence led by the

respondent by proving on record the copy of her attendance

register of the school. The perusal of which shows that

prosecutrix was present in the school on 06.05.2004 and

07.05.2004 and so on. It further reveals that from the date of

alleged incident till the end of May, 2004, the prosecutrix had

never been on leave for a single day and she had been coming

to school as usual whereas in her testimony before the Court had

categorically stated that after the incident she had sopped going

to school till the date, she had submitted an application to S.P.,

Hamirpur about the incident, on the advice of the headmaster

26. Apart from the above, we notice that there is no

explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why she did not

disclose about the incident, in question, to anybody else

including the teachers and other colleagues and continued

coming to the school as usual. What is more surprising is that

she even did not choose to disclose this fact to her mother-in-law

or even her father-in-law or any other close relative.

27. As regards the defence of threat put up by the

prosecutrix in a complaint Ext.PW1/C filed on 26.06.2004, she

had stated that respondent was serving in the Army and after

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

committing rape on her had ran away on the same day. If that be

so, then there was no occasion for the respondent to threaten


her or for the prosecutrix to feel threatened.

28. Now adverting to the another significant aspect of

the case, we notice that it is the specific case of the prosecutrix

that she was dragged by the accused up to a distance of 10-15

mtrs. and there was stones and bushes at that place, but

surprisingly enough, the impact of such dragging did not have

any effect on the clothes worn by the prosecutrix.

29. That apart, even the MLC of the prosecutrix did not

show that there was any evidence of external injury. Though as

per the prosecutrix the headmaster had only become inquisitive

after he had seen the prosecutrix limping, upon which she had

revealed the entire story to the headmaster.

30. Now adverting to the other evidence on record, it

would be noticed that it is the specific case of the prosecutrix

that she at the time of incident had been crying but the

respondent gagged her with dupatta. However, in case her

complaint is seen, it would be revealed that therein it has been

mentioned that at the time of incident she wanted to cry but

could not do so as the respondent had gagged her mouth with

her handkerchief. However, in Ext.PW1/C, she stated that she

raised cry but there was none to listen to her.

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

31. Apart from the aforesaid contradictions, it would also

be noticed that prosecutrix while appearing as PW1 stated that


when she was proceedings towards her school through the

lonely jungle, the respondent met her and offered her lift to

school, which she declined. However, now in case complaint

Ext.PW1/A is seen the prosecutrix has stated that on 05.05.2004

at about 1:00 pm, when she was going to her home from

Chabutra school and, when reached on a turn near Bhamereli

respondent met her there. Meaning thereby, that in the

complaint Ext.PW1/A, she had stated that occurrence took place

when she was going to her house from Chabutra school whereas

in complaint Ext.PW1/C, she has stated that she was going to her

house from Chabutra School.

32. One of the other issue which arises for consideration

is whether on 05.05.2004 was a holiday. If that be so, obviously

then there was no question of the prosecutrix going to the

school on that date to collect salary. In order to substantiate this

plea, respondent placed on record documents Ext. DW3/A to

DW3/E and DW1/A. The perusal of these documents show that

05.05.2004 had been shown as holiday being “Budh Purnima

whereas 03.05.2004 has been shown as pay day.

33. No doubt, the prosecution has examined PW5 Amar

Singh to clear this doubt and, in fact, deposed that he wrongly

mentioned Budh Purnima holiday on 05.05.2004 in the school

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

record due to election duty he was under stress. But the record

shows that the election was on 10.05.2004 and, therefore, the


version put-forth by him clearly belies the version put-forth by

this witness.

34. Therefore, in this background, in view of the

conflicting documents coming on record, it is difficult to hold that

05.05.2004 i.e. the date of incident was the working day and,

therefore, the prosecution case becomes all the more doubtful.

35. At this stage, we may now advert to the medical

evidence that has been produced on record. From MLC of the

prosecutrix Ext. PW2/B, no injury was found anywhere on her

person. Similarly, as per MLC of the respondent Ext. PW9/A, no

injury was found on his person and the obvious reason for this is

the long time gap between the date of the alleged incident and

the medical examination. However, it may be noticed that PW2

based her opinion Ext.PW2/D on the basis of the chemical

examiner report Ext.PW2/C and had opined that the prosecutrix

was subjected to sexual intercourse in the past, which could in

no manner be an indicator or point a finger against the


36. Even the FSL report Ext.PW2/C does not make

mention of any semen having been found on vaginal slides,

vaginal swab and clothes of the prosecutrix and the reason

thereof is obvious on account of time lag. Therefore, even the

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

medical evidence does not support much less substantiate the

allegations put-forth by the prosecutrix.


37. As regards the other witnesses though they have

corroborated the case of the prosecutrix to the extent of their

role and the part played by them in the investigation, however,

their evidence formal in nature and is no way sufficient to

connect the respondent with the offence in question.

38. We are not oblivious of the oft quoted passage from

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab

vs. Gurmit Singh ors. (1996) 2 SCC 384, that “A murderer

destroys the physical body of his victim, rapist degrades the

very soul of the helpless female. The courts, therefore, shoulder

a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape.

They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The

courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and

not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant

discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not

of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution


39. However, as discussed above, the evidence led by

the prosecution does not even cast an eye of suspicion much

less grave suspicion on the respondent for the offence alleged to

have been committed by him. Therefore, we have no hesitation

to conclude that the judgment of the learned trial court

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

demonstrates that the view found by it is based on the material

on record and is otherwise a possible and plausible one. It


cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by it is not borne

out from the record or the same is perverse.

40. The learned trial Court has meticulously discussed

the entire evidence on record and it was only after close scrutiny

thereof that it has returned the findings of acquittal in favour of

the respondent.

41. In view of this, this Court is of the considered view

that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against

the respondent rather we have no hesitation to conclude that

the story put-forth by the prosecution apparently falls and does

not inspire any confidence.

42. The statement of the prosecutrix as also the

statements of PW3 and PW4 does not inspire any confidence.

Therefore, while concurring with the findings returned by the

learned trial Court, we dismiss the appeal being devoid of

merits. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent are

ordered to be discharged.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan),

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
August 9, 2018

10/08/2018 23:01:07 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation