HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
..
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 551 / 1994.
The State of Rajasthan
—-Appellant
Versus
Kishore Singh S/o Himmat Singh, b/c Rajput, r/o Dholiya, Police
Station Rajgarh, District Churu.
—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment
07/06/2017
BY THE COURT:
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(iii) (i) Cr.P.C. has
been preferred on behalf of the appellant – State of Rajasthan
being aggrieved with the judgment dated 01.06.1994 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Churu [Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities), Churu] (hereinafter to be referred as
‘the trial Court’) whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the
accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376
IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi) 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the
(2 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
to be referred as ‘the Act of 1989’).
2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State
of Rajasthan has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred
in acquitting the accused/respondent for the charges for which he
was charged. It is argued that from the statement of the
prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo and from the statement of witnesses
PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand,l it is proved that on
17.09.1991 at about 4:00 pm, the accused/respondent has
committed rape upon the prosecutrix, who belongs to the
Scheduled Caste. It is contended that the prosecutrix PW-4 Mst.
Rajo in her statement has categorically stated that when she was
working in the field on the day of incident, the accused/
respondent came there and dragged her for 50-60 feet and
thereafter has forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further
argued that PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deep Chand have
witnessed the incident and they have also stated before the
learned trial Court that on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix,
they reached at the agricultural field of Shrichand where the
prosecutrix was working. They found that the accused/respondent
was lying on the prosecutrix and on seeing them, he ran from
there. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the
Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, has found
that the allegation of rape levelled against the accused/respondent
was proved. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued
that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charges levelled
(3 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]
against the accused/respondent for which he was charged,
however, the learned trial Court, without taking into consideration
the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective, has
acquitted the accused/respondent for the charges for which he
was charged.
3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Gupta appearing for
the accused/respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed
to prove the charges against the accused/respondent by producing
cogent and reliable evidence and, therefore, the learned trial
Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused/
respondent and no illegality has been committed in passing the
impugned judgment by the learned trial Court. It is also argued by
the learned counsel for the accused/respondent that as a matter
of fact, the relationship between the prosecutirx and the accused/
respondent were consensual and as such, it cannot be said that
the accused/respondent has committed rape upon the prosecutirx.
Learned counsel for the accused/respondent has prayed that the
instant appeal filed by the State may kindly be dismissed while
maintaining the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully scrutinized the record of the case.
5. FIR No. 205/1991 was registered at Police Station Rajgarh,
District Churu on 18.09.1991 against the accused/respondent for
(4 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]
the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/11
of the Act of 1989. In the FIR, it was alleged that when the
prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo was working in the agricultural field of
Shrichand Jat on 17.09.1991, at about 4:00 pm, the
accused/respondent came into the field and has caught hold of her
and dragged her for about 50-60 feet and thereafter forcibly
committed rape upon her. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the
prosecutirx has raised cries and on hearing this, PW-5 Deepchand
came there and on seeing him, the accused/respondent ran away
from the sport. The Police, after investigating into the allegations
levelled in the FIR, has filed charge-sheet against the
accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376
IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi) 3(ii)(v) of the Act of 1989. The learned
trial Court has also framed charges against the
accused/respondent for the aforesaid offences. However, the
accused/respondent has denied the charges and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution has produced as many as 10 witnesses to
prove the charges levelled against the accused/ respondent. Out
of those 10 witnesses, two witnesses, namely, PW-1 Chandgi Ram
and PW-5 Deepchand were termed as eye-witnesses of the
incident. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-4. The learned
trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of PW-1
Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand and has come to the
conclusion that in the FIR, the prosecutrix has not stated that PW-
1 Chandgi Ram also reached at the spot after hearing her cries.
(5 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]
7. The learned trial Court has observed that enmity between
the accused/respondent and PW-1 Chandgi Ram is admitted by
PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand. The trial Court has also
observed that even if it is assumed that PW-1 Chandgi Ram and
PW-5 Deepchand have witnessed the incident then also, the
accused/respondent cannot be held guilty for the commission of
rape upon the prosecutrix as both the witnesses have stated that
when they reached at the sport then they found that the
accused/respondent was lying on the prosecutrix and on seeing
them, he ran away from there.
8. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of the
prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo in detail and has observed that the
prosecutrix has not named PW-1 Chandgi Ram as an eye-
witnesses of the incident in the FIR but in her Court statements,
she has stated that PW-1 Chandgi Ram has also witnessed the
incident. The learned trial Court has further observed that the
prosecutrix has stated in her Court statements that after caught
hold of her, the accused/respondent has dragged her for about 50-
60 feet and thereafter forcibly committed rape upon her. The trial
Court is of the opinion that the said version of the prosecutrix
cannot be believed because as per the medical report, no injury
on the body of the prosecutrix was found during the course of her
medical examination. The trial Court has further taken into
consideration the statement of the prosecutrix wherein, she has
specifically stated that during the commission of rape by the
accused/respondent, she hugged him. The learned trial Court is
(6 of 6)
[CRLA-551/1994]
of the opinion that if the accused/respondent was committing rape
upon the prosecutrix, she could have resisted as the prosecutrix is
fully grown up lady of 30 years and it cannot be expected from
her that when the accused/respondent was committing rape upon
her, she has hugged her.
9. After discussing the evidence of the prosecutrix in detail, the
learned trial Court has opined that there is all possibility that the
relationship between the accused/ respondent and the prosecutrix
were consensual and on account of enmity of the
accused/respondent with PW-1 Chandgi Ram, a false case has
been registered against him.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court,
while acquitting the accused/respondent for the charges, are not
liable to be interfered with. Hence, there is no force in this appeal
preferred by the appellant-State and, therefore, the same is
dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.
/Mohan/H-44