SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of J&K; vs Ravi Kumar on 16 November, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU

CRAA No.13/2005 IA No.1/2017
Date of order:16.11.2018
State of JK Vs. Ravi Kumar
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge

Appearing counsel:

For appellant(s) : Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA
For respondent(s) : Mr. C. B. Slathia, Advocate
i/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Press/Media?
ii/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Digest/Journal?

1. The State has preferred this Criminal Acquittal Appeal against
judgment dated 31.08.2004 passed by learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Jammu in case FIR No.160/1996, registered at Police
Station, Kahna Chak, under Sections 363/376 RPC, whereby
respondent herein stands acquitted of the charges.

2. The case of the prosecution is based on occurrence dated
14.12.1996 when complainant, namely, Garu Ram lodged a verbal
report with the Police Post Gharota stating therein that on
13.12.1996 at evening he came back from his duty when his wife
informed him that his daughter had not come back to home while
she left for school at 8.45 in the morning. She was studying in 8 th
class at Government Middle School Seeri Panditan and her age is
15/16 years. He searched his daughter at the houses of his relations
but she could not be traced. He suspected that Ravi Kumar accused
had kidnapped his minor daughter. On this, report No.10 dated

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 1 of 18
14.12.1996 was entered at Police Station Gharota and a copy of the
same was sent to Police Station Kahna Chak for registration of the
case under Section 363 RPC. FIR No.160/1996 was registered with
the Police Station, Kahna Chak and after investigation a challan
under Section 363/376 RPC was presented in the court below.

3. After perusing the documents produced by the prosecution under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., the court below came to the conclusion that a
prima facie case under Section 363/376 RPC was made out against
the accused Ravi Kumar and accordingly charge was framed
against the accused by the court below on 25.02.1997. The contents
of the charge were read over and explained to the accused, who
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order
to prove its case had examined the witnesses, namely, Neel Kumar
PW-1, Garu Ram PW-2, Rano Devi PW-3, Devi Dayal PW-4,
Victim (name of the victim is not disclosed) PW-5 and Gurdev
Singh ASI PW-6. Witness Pappu was given up as he has been
turned hostile by the prosecution, whereas Dr. Romesh Chander
was also given up as he was not necessary witness in the case. The
accused has not led any evidence in defence. Court below after trial
has acquitted the accused.

4. Before proceeding ahead the brief resume of the statements made
by the prosecution witnesses is as under:

Neel Kumar PW-1 has stated that he knows the accused and the
victim is his niece (brother‟s daughter). On 13.12.1996 victim was
missing and they started her search till 14.12.1996 and she could
not be traced. During her search they came to know that accused
Ravi Kumar had kidnapped the victim for marrying her. At that

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 2 of 18
time the victim was studying in 6th class. He and his brother Garu
Ram lodged the report with the Police Station Kahna Chak in
respect of the kidnapping of victim by accused Ravi Kumar for
marrying. The report was lodged by his brother verbally but he was
accompanying his brother. He went along with police to the house
of the accused. On enquiry by police, father of the accused told that
the accused along with victim was sleeping in the adjoining room.
Police went inside the room and found both the accused and victim
sleeping there. Thereafter police called him and his brother inside
the room for identification and they identified the accused and the
victim. When police called them inside the room the Shalwar of
victim was found near the pillow. He came out and police prepared
the recovery memo and obtained his signatures. Police also seized
Shalwar vide seizure memo EXPW-NK/1 and he identified his
signatures on it. The victim was handed over on sapurdnama to her
father vide sapurdnama EXPW-NK/2.

In cross examination he has stated that they came to know
from the mother of accused Ravi that the accused had kidnapped
the victim. They came to know this fact on 13 th at 8.00 in the
evening. The mother of accused met them outside his house at
Raipur and gave this information. He knew the mother of accused
earlier. His brother Naseebu Ram and his sister are married in that
village. Mother of accused gave this information to him while he
was alone on 14th at 7.30 pm and the earlier statement in this
respect is not correct. Thereafter he went to his house and informed
his brother about it. Numberdar, Faiju Ram also accompanied them
to the Police Station. Police recovered the victim on 15 th at night.

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 3 of 18

Report was lodged by his brother on 14th at 11.30 in the day. The
victim was married one year before.

Garu Ram PW-2 has stated that the victim is his daughter and at
the time of occurrence her age was 15/16 years. On 13.12.1996 he
came back at evening to his house after attending his duty at
Nagrota and his wife told that his daughter had not reached home.
They searched for her for two days. Thereafter on 15.12.1996 at
evening they lodged report with the Police Post, Gharota. He put
his signatures on Roznamcha dated 14.12.1996 which are correct
and copy is marked as EXPW-GR. The contents are also correct.
The day on which the report was lodged the same day police raided
the house of the accused and got recovered his daughter. Police
told that the girl had been recovered from the house of the accused.
He was standing outside when police went to recover the girl.
Accused and his daughter were brought out by the police.
Recovery memo EXPW-NK was prepared by the police and he
signed the same. Police also seized the clothes of the victim vide
seizure memo EXPW-NK/1 and he signed the same. The victim
was kept on his sapurdnama vide memo EXPW-NK/2.

In cross examination he has stated that the report was lodged
next day of the occurrence at 5/6 in the evening. His brother Neel
Kumar accompanied him at that time. He does not know whether
Neel Kumar also signed the report or not but he signed this report.
His wife told that Ravi Kumar-accused used to visit the house of
his cousin, who is married in their locality and on the day of
occurrence the accused had also come there and accused had
kidnapped his daughter. In his report with the police he told that he

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 4 of 18
suspected accused in kidnapping his daughter. It is correctly
entered in the police report that his daughter was studying in 8 th
class and whatever he told today that she was studying in 6th class
is not correct. He does not remember because the occurrence took
place since long. It is wrong that his brother Neel Kumar told him
that the accused Ravi Kumar had kidnapped his daughter. Police
went to the house of the accused at 7-8 in the evening and he
remained at a distance of 25-30 feet away from that house.
Recovery memo was prepared by the police at the house of the
accused but his signatures were obtained outside and at that time
the police told him that the girl had been recovered. The seizure
memo of the clothes of his daughter was prepared at police post at
night, on the day the girl was recovered. He took the girl to his
house during the night and in the morning he handed over her
clothes to the police at Police Post and the police prepared the
seizure memo next day morning.

Rano Devi PW-3 has stated that the victim is her daughter. At the
time of occurrence she was student of 6th class. 2 ½ years before at
morning the victim went to school but did not come back to the
home at evening. They started search of their daughter at the
houses of their relations but she could not be traced. Next day they
lodged report with police post that the accused had kidnapped their
daughter. Police recovered the girl from the house of the accused.
On her enquiry her daughter told that the accused frightened her
and forcibly kidnapped her without her consent.

In cross examination she has stated that she was married
20/25 years before and the victim was born one year after

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 5 of 18
marriage. The girl was not recovered in her presence from the
house of the accused. The sister of her husband is married with the
uncle of the accused in the same village. The victim used to visit
the village of the accused to meet her aunt. Victim is married now.
Her daughter was studying in 9th class at Seeri Panditan High
School.

Devi Dayal Sharma PW-4 has stated that on 02.01.1997 he was
posted as Headmaster Government Middle School Seri Panditan
Block Bhalwal. Certificate EXPW-DD dated 02.01.1997 was
issued by him and the date of birth of the victim as per the school
record was 28.04.1981.

In cross examination he has stated that the victim was
student of 8th class in their school. She was a student of Primary
School Nadwal before taking admission in their school. The date of
birth of victim has been recorded on the basis of discharge
certificate issued by Primary School, Nadwal.

Victim PW-5 has stated that she does not know the accused. Four
years before she was going to Seeri Panditan School where she was
studying, when accused was moving ahead of her. She does not
know the name of the accused but identifies him from the face. The
accused threatened her to kill in case she did not accompany him.
Accused compelled her to move along with him. The accused took
her to Nagbani and kept her there for the night in the house of one
relation. At night accused raped her. Next day accused brought her
to Jammu city and she was not having money for bus fare. At
10/11 her uncle met her and police was accompanying him. Police
apprehended her and the accused. At the time of occurrence her

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 6 of 18
age was 15 years. Police took them to police post. She was got
medically examined at Jammu. She does not know whether
Shalwar which she was wearing at the time of occurrence was
given to the police or not. After hearing the contents of seizure
memo EXPW-NK/1 she stated that shirt and Shalwar were given to
Gharota police and she signed the seizure memo.

In cross examination she has stated that she does not know
the name of the accused even today. Accused lives near the house
of her aunt. Name of her aunt is Guddo and she is wife of Jeet
Singh. Jeet Singh and father of the accused are not brothers. House
of her aunt is situated at a distance from the house of accused. She
has not gone to the house of the accused. They went to Nagbani on
bus. There were passengers in the bus. She did not tell any
passengers in the bus that the accused had been taking her forcibly.
They reached Nagbani at 10/11 in the morning. The relations of the
accused were present in the house at Nagbani. Ladies were also
present. She told the resident of that house accused had brought her
forcibly. There were two rooms in that house. Nobody else stay in
the room at night in which they stayed for the night. Next day
morning they came to Jammu on bus. When they got down at bus
stand her uncle met there along with the police. Police did not
make any enquiry from her about the occurrence. The accused was
having knife in his hand. When they were travelling in the bus the
accused had kept the knife in his pocket. She informed the police
and her parents about the rape. Accused was also taken into
custody by the police at Bus Stand, Jammu. She also informed the
police that accused had threatened her with knife. When accused

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 7 of 18
was arrested by the police at bus stand, Jammu the accused was not
having knife at that time. The accused came out of Khud and
started moving behind her when she was going to school. Her
clothes were not torn. She was not raped by anybody before the
occurrence. It was bleeding. Her Shalwar was blood stained.
Accused also gave teeth bites on her breast and scratches were
sustained by her on the back. She also received other injuries.
These injuries were shown to the doctor. She was examined
medically same day on which they were apprehended.
S. Gurdev Singh ASI PW-6 has stated that in December, 1996 he
was posted at Gharota Police Post. He has conducted the
investigation in the case FIR No.160/1996 under Section 363/376
RPC registered with the Police Station Kahna Chak. During
investigation he prepared the site plan EXPW-GS. On 05.12.1996
he recovered the victim from the possession of the accused vide
recovery memo EXPW-NK. He also prepared the site plan EXPW-
GS/1 of the place of recovery of the victim. The victim produced
one Shalwar before him which was seized vide seizure memo
EXPW-NK/1. The victim was kept on the sapurdnama of her father
vide memo NK/2. He recorded the statements of witnesses under
Section 161 CrPC. He also obtained the certificate in respect of
date of birth of the victim which is on the file. According to his
investigation a case under Section 363/376 RPC was proved
against the accused. The Shalwar shown to him in the court, is the
same which was seized by him.

In cross examination he has stated that the victim went at
9.00 am on 13.12.1996 and the report was lodged with the police

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 8 of 18
on 14.12.1996 at 12.00 noon. Police post is situated 6/7 kilometer
away from the house of the complainant. The girl was taken to
Nagbani garden and thereafter in the room. There was no bed and
bedding in the room. He does not know who owned those garden
and room. He does not know whether the girl went along with the
accused by foot or on bus. Accused brought the girl on 15 th
December at his house and stayed there for the night. It has come
in his investigation that on the night intervening 14 th and 15th the
victim and the accused stayed at bus stand, Jammu. He recovered
the girl at 9.00 in the morning and at that time the complainant and
his brother were also present there. He did not find any mark of
injury on the body of victim. It is wrong that the victim herself
went and her uncle brought her to the police.

5. The court below after appreciating the evidence acquitted the
accused/respondent as court came to the conclusion that
prosecution case is full of contradictions; that there is contradiction
with regard to place of recovery of victim; there is contradiction
with regard to seizure of clothes of victim; that medical evidence
has not been produced; further medical certificate shows no mark
of injury on genital parts of victim; slide examination shows no
presence of spermatozoa.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of the
matter.

7. The scope of power of appellate court in case of acquittal has been
highlighted by Apex Court in AIR 2014 SC 2200 in case titled
‘Muralidhar alias Gidda anr. v State of Karnatka’ [Criminal

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 9 of 18
Appeal No.551 with 791 and 1081 of 2011, D/- 9-4-2014], which
read as under :-

“10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach
of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal
against acquittal. Lord Russell said, “… the High Court should
and will always give proper weight and consideration to such
matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of
the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that
he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to
the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate
court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.” The opinion of the
Lord Russell has been followed over the years.

11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while
dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against
acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code
observed, “…………the High Court has full power to review the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it
is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court,
and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of
seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed
only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”

12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against
acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3],
Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5] , Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir
Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10],
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem
Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai[15], K.
Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan
Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana
Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay
Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal
with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court
has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against
acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 10 of 18

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an
accused person and such presumption is strengthened
by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial
court,

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of
reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the
appeal against acquittal,

(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in
considering the appeals against acquittal are as
extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions
but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing
the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so
because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the
demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a
reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by
the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not
justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial
court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of
the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they
are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on
the part of the appellate court in interfering with such
conclusions is fully justified, and

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-
appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is
inclined to take a different view, interference with the
judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken
by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly
balanced views of the evidence must not result in the
interference by the appellate court in the judgment of
the trial court.

13. In „Ghurey Lal v State of U.P.‟ (2008) 10 SCC 450, the Court
has culled out the principles relating to the appeals from a judgment of
acquittal which are in line with what we have observed above.”

8. In criminal trial, the burden always lies on prosecution to establish
the case against the accused and the accused persons are presumed to

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 11 of 18
be innocent of the offence charged till the contrary is established. The
presumption of innocence always applies to accused. The prosecution
has to discharge its onus of proving the case against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts, which is cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence. In determining the guilt of person charged with crime,
onus of proving everything essential for the establishment of the
charge against the accused persons lies on the prosecution. The
evidence must be such as to exclude moral certainty, every
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. In the matter of doubt, it
is safer to acquit the accused, because it is better that several guilty
person should escape than that one innocent person suffer. If there be
any gap or lacuna in the prosecution evidence, the accused and not
the prosecution, would be entitled to get the benefit of doubt. It is the
duty of the prosecution to ensure all diligence and carefulness
required to see that all are brought on record and that prosecution
does not fail to such neglect. The weakness in defence established by
the accused persons is no help to prosecution, because the
prosecution has to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt. Mere
creation of suspicion is not enough. There is inevitably long distance
to travel between „may be true‟ and „must be true‟. The distance to
travel must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and
unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. More
the heinous offence, strict proofs are required.

9. The fact in issue can be established by direct evidence or by indirect
evidence.

10. In case of rape, the evidence of Prosecutrix carries value, other
evidence are only of corroborating in nature. Now law is well

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 12 of 18
established that court can base its conviction in rape case, only on sole
testimony of Prosecutrix, if her testimony inspires confidence of
court. Rape has been defined under section 375 RPC. It says that if
any person has sexual intercourse with a woman under seven
circumstances, then it can be termed as rape. These are; 1) against the
Will of Prosecutrix; 2) without her consent; 3) with her consent when
consent has been obtained by putting her or any other person in whom
she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt; 4) with her consent, when
the man knows that he is not her husband and her consent is given
because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes
herself to be lawfully married; 5) with her consent when at the time of
giving consent she was by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication or the administration by him personally or through
another of any stupedfying or unwholesome substance, she is unable
to understand the nature and consequences of that action to which she
gives consent; 6) with or without her consent when she is under 18
years; and 7) when she is unable to communicate consent.

11. In term of clause 6 of section 375 RPC, consent if given by a girl
below 18 years carries no value and person is liable to be convicted.
Further in case of rape, the statement of Prosecutrix is very important
since in such cases normally direct evidence is not available. Court
has to draw its conclusion from attending circumstances and
probability of facts stated by victim. Conduct of Prosecutrix is very
important in order to appreciate her evidence on right perspective.
There should not be animus against the accused by victim or her
relative; there should not be artificiality and unnaturalness in version
of victim.

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 13 of 18

12. In AIR 2012 (SC) 2281 in case titled “Narender Kumar Vs. State
(NCET of Delhi), it has been held:-

“23. the court while trying an accused on charge of rape,
must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the
broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor
contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of
witnesses which are not of a substantial character.

However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the
prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the
offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no
part of the duty of the defense to explain as to how and why in
rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated
the accused.

24. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot
take support from the weakness of the case of defense.
However, great the suspicion against the accused and however
strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the
offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt
on the basis of legal evidence and material on record, he
cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial
presumption of innocence of accused and the prosecution has
brought home the guilt against he accused by reliable
evidence. The accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable
doubt. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt and take support from weakness of case of defense.
There must be proper legal evidence and material on record to
record the conviction of accused. Conviction can be based on
sole testimony of Prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of
her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to
accept version of Prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for
corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and
story projected by Prosecutrix is found to be improbable the
prosecution case is liable to be rejected.”

13. In present case, as rightly held, there is contradiction with regard to
recovery of victim; as per victim she was apprehended when she and
accused were at bus stand, Jammu. But PWs Neel Kumar uncle of
victim, Garu Ram father of victim, Rano Devi mother of victim and S.
Gurdev Singh I/O have stated that victim was recovered from the
house of accused. Even recovery memo EXPW-NK and site map

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 14 of 18
EXPW-GS/1 would reveal that victim was recovered from house of
accused. I/O has also stated that during investigation he came to know
that victim and accused stayed at a hotel at bus stand; but I/O has not
made any attempt to collect any evidence in this regard. No person
from the vicinity from where victim was recovered has been examined
from which it can be inferred as to whether she was actually recovered
from house of accused or from bus stand. So there is material
contradiction, therefore, this finding of the court below is not perverse
in nature.

14. There is also contradiction with regard to seizure memo of clothes of
victim; PW Neel Kumar has stated that shalwar of victim was lying
near pillow and police seized it vide EXPWNK/1 on same day;
whereas PW Garo Ram another witness to seizure has stated that
seizure memo was prepared at police post, but he took victim to home
and handed over salwar on next day to police. Whereas victim has
stated that she does not know whether shalwar seized; while reading
seizure memo she stated that shawar was given to P/S Gharota and it
was blood stained; I/O has stated that victim produced the shalwar.
So there is material contradiction. There is also no evidence as to
whether seized shalwar was sent for FSL or not. Further victim has
stated that her clothes were torn, her shalwar became blood stained.
the accused gave teeth bites on her breast and scratches were
sustained by her on back; she has also stated that she received injuries
on her body, which she shown to doctor. Although medical of victim
has not been proved as PW Doctor has been given up by prosecution.
However certificate shows that there was no mark of injuries on the
body of victim; no injury was found on genital organ of victim as she

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 15 of 18
was menstruating; even slides examination reveal, non presence of
spermatozoa. In this way finding of court below in this regard is also
not perverse. One more fact is important worth to be taken note that
victim has stated that accused compelled her to move along with him.
The accused took her to Nagbani and kept her there for the night in
the house of one relation. At night accused raped her. Next day
accused brought her to Jammu city and she was not having money for
bus fare. At 10/11 her uncle met her and police was accompanying
him. Police apprehended her and the accused. In cross examination
has stated that They went to Nagbani on bus. There were passengers
in the bus. She did not tell any passengers in the bus that the accused
had been taking her forcibly. They reached Nagbani at 10/11 in the
morning. The relations of the accused were present in the house at
Nagbani. Ladies were also present. She told the resident of that house
accused had brought her forcibly. There were two rooms in that
house. Nobody else stayed in the room at night in which they stayed
for the night. Next day morning they came to Jammu on bus. When
they got down at bus stand her uncle met there along with the police.
Police did not make any enquiry from her about the occurrence.

15. If these facts as narrated by victim are considered in right perspective,
it is evident that she had sufficient opportunity to take help from
passengers in bus while going to Nagbani and then to bus stand by
asking them that she has been kidnapped by accused.

16. In AIR 1998 SC 2694 in case titled Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of
Bihar, it is held as under:

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 16 of 18

“Then coming to the conviction of the appellant under Section
376 IPC, although both the courts below have held after accepting
the evidence of prosecutrix being truthful held that the appellant
has forcibly committed the rape, we are of the opinion that the
said finding is unsustainable. The prosecutrix had sufficient
opportunity not only to run away from the house at Ramgarh but
she could have also taken the help of neighbours from the said
village. The medical evidence of Dr. Maya shankar Thakur –
P.W.2 also indicates that there were no injuries on the person of
the prosecutrix including her private part. Her entire conduct
clearly shows that she was a consenting party to the sexual
intercourse and if this be so, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 376 IPC cannot be sustained. There is one more
additional factor which we must mention that it is not the case of
the prosecutrix that she was put in physical restraint in the house
at Ramgarh, with the result her movements were restricted. This
circumstance also goes to negative the case of forcible intercourse
with the prosecutrix by the appellant.”

17. In AIR 2012 SC 2281 case titled Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of
Delhi), it has been held as under:

“17. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from
serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material,
prosecutrix making deliberate improvements on material point
with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no
injury on her person even though her version may be otherwise,
no reliance can be placed upon her evidence. (Vide: Suresh N.
Bhusare Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 1 SCC 220)

18. In Jai Krishna Mandal Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010)
14 SCC 534, this Court while dealing with the issue held: “The
only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself
and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected
by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be
believed.”

19. In Rajoo Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC
858, this Court held that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix
should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her
statement has to be evaluated on par with that of an injured
witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is
necessary. The court however, further observed:

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 17 of 18

“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 there is no
presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such
a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or
exaggeration.”

20. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15
SCC 566, this Court held has under: “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.”

18. In view of above, the story of rape projected by victim does not
inspire confidence of court. The courts while appreciating the
evidence in criminal cases have to see the degree of proof is maxim
than that of civil case. If there comes slightest doubt regarding the
involvement of accused then court should not go on convicting the
accused. Court can only find the guilt of a person only if it is
convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt of his or her guilt. There
should be strict proofs that accused committed the offence. In present
case, as already discussed hereinabove, there is no strict proof that
accused have committed the criminal act as alleged by prosecution.

19. In view of above discussion, the order of court below is correct and
this acquittal appeal has no merit; it is dismissed accordingly.

(Sanjay Kumar Gupta)
Judge
Jammu
16.11.2018
Vijay

CRAA No. 13/2005 Page 18 of 18

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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