Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
DATED : 21st of July, 2021
————————————————————————————-
DIVISION BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
————————————————————————————-
Crl.A. No.09 of 2020
Appellant : State of Sikkim
versus
Respondent : Jigmee Bhutia
Appeal under Section 378 (1)(b)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
————————————————————–
Appearance
Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan Sunwar,
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant.
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yozan Rai, Advocate for the
Respondent.
—————————————————————-
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. Dissatisfied with the Judgment in Sessions Trial (F.T.)
Case No.17 of 2018, dated 29.08.2019, vide which the Respondent
was acquitted of the offences under Sections 376(1), 457 and 323
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), the instant
Appeal has been preferred.
2. Assailing the findings of the Learned Trial Court, the
Learned Public Prosecutor, before this Court, contended that there
was sufficient and cogent evidence to establish the Prosecution
case against the Respondent. That, in a plethora of Judgments, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that conviction on the sole
testimony of a victim is permissible and requires no corroboration.
On this aspect, reliance was placed on Ganesan vs. State,
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 2
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
represented by its Inspector of Police1. That, the case of the victim
has been consistent in the First Information Report (for short,
“FIR”), in her Statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) and in her evidence during
trial. That, her testimony has been duly corroborated by the
evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, which the Learned Trial Court
overlooked. That, a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not
an accomplice to the crime but stands at a higher pedestal than an
injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury, to support
this submission strength was garnered from the ratio in Mohd.
Imran Khan vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi) 2. It was further urged
that the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses have withstood the
test of cross-examination, hence the Learned Trial Court was in
error in arriving at the finding that due to differences between the
Respondent and the victim on account of a debt owed by her to the
Respondent, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled
out. That, this observation was based solely on the evidence of the
Defence Witnesses. That, in his responses under Section 313
Cr.P.C., the Respondent merely denied having committed the
offence but did not explain the circumstances of his presence in the
victim‟s house. Hence, the impugned Judgment be set aside and
the Respondent be convicted of the offences that he was booked
under.
3. Resisting the arguments of the Learned Public
Prosecutor, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted
that it is the bounden duty of the Prosecution as per law, to prove
its case beyond a reasonable doubt, however, no incriminating
1
(2020) 10 SCC 573
2
(2011) 10 SCC 192
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 3
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
evidence has emerged against the Respondent. That, P.W.7, the
Doctor, who examined the victim and P.W.9, the Scientific Officer
of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “RFSL”),
Saramsa, East Sikkim, who examined the Material Objects, were
unable to detect any evidence to indicate involvement of the
Respondent in the alleged crime. That, the Respondent and the
victim were, in fact, known to each other, as emanates from the
evidence of D.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and since she was unwilling to repay
the amount owed by her to the Respondent for purchases made by
her from D.W.1, the Respondent‟s wife, she chose to settle the
score by implicating him in a false case. Learned Senior Counsel
put forth the alternative argument that the Respondent was at the
victim‟s house with her consent. Hence, the conclusion of the
Learned Trial Court requires no intervention. To bolster his
contentions, Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Alok Debroy
and Another vs. State of Assam3, Panua alias Pravat Kumar Chand vs.
State of Orissa4 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa, and (Cr. Appeal
30 of 2011) Pratap Chand vs. State of H.P. and (Cr. Appeal No.31 of
5
2011) Duni Chand vs. State of H.P.
4. Before embarking on examining the merits of the
matter, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts of the
Prosecution case for clarity. On 31.07.2017, at around 21:40 Hrs,
P.W.1, the Prosecutrix, lodged the FIR, Exhibit 1, before the
Singtam Police Station informing that at around 18:30 Hrs the
same evening, an unknown person had entered her house on the
pretext of requesting her for a glass of water and then raped her.
Based on the FIR, Singtam P.S. Case No.56/2017, dated
3
2004 Cri.LJ 3048
4
2009 SCC OnLine Ori 616
5
2014 SCC OnLine HP 3307
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 4
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
31.07.2017, under Section 376 IPC was registered against the
Respondent. During investigation it emerged that the Respondent
entered the house of the Prosecutrix, carried her to a room on the
second floor of her house, tore off her clothes and committed
penetrative sexual assault on her. Despite resistance, she was
unable to fend off his assault and her screams went unanswered,
her house being isolated from other houses. After the incident, the
Respondent allegedly stayed in the room where the incident
occurred, while she escaped and telephonically contacted P.W.3,
her mother, narrating the incident to her. P.W.3 advised her to call
the Police. Instead, she called P.W.6, the Panchayat President of
Martam, Lingtam Ward, who incidentally is her maternal uncle, as
the Police number was not known to her and narrated the incident
to him as well. P.W.6 called the Police upon which, both P.W.6 and
P.W.3 then reached the place of occurrence (for short, “P.O.”).
They found the Respondent inside the room and on coaxing by the
Police, he opened the door, after which he was taken to Singtam
Police Station by P.W.2 ASI Tashi Pincho Bhutia. He was arrested
that night around 01:10 Hrs (i.e. of 01.08.2017). On completion of
investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against the Respondent
under Sections 376 and 457 of the IPC. The Learned Trial Court
framed Charge against the Respondent under Sections 376(1), 457
and 323 of the IPC. On his plea of “not guilty,” twelve Prosecution
Witnesses were examined, on closure of which, the Respondent
was afforded an opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain
the incriminating evidence against him. He denied any involvement
in the offence and examined three witnesses in his defence.
Arguments of the parties were finally heard and the Learned Trial
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 5
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
Court, finding that the Prosecution had failed to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of doubt to the
Respondent and acquitted him of all Charges supra.
5. In the backdrop of the submissions of Learned Counsel
for the Appellant that conviction on the sole testimony of the
Prosecutrix is permissible, it is firstly to be examined as to whether
the evidence of the Prosecutrix is reliable, trustworthy and of
sterling quality to inspire the confidence of this Court. It is also to
be examined as to whether the Prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt or whether the Learned Trial Court erred
in acquitting the Respondent.
6.(a) The Prosecutrix, examined as P.W.1, deposed that the
Respondent came to her house, stood near the entrance of her
building and asked her for a glass of water at which time, she
noticed that he appeared to be drunk and his eyes were red.
Pausing here for a moment, while reverting to Exhibit 1, the FIR
and Exhibit 2, her Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
identified by her before the Court, it is clear that she has made an
effort to improve her case during trial, since neither in Exhibit 1 nor
in Exhibit 2, has she stated that the Respondent appeared to be
drunk. This Court is conscious that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia
but immediate relevant facts would obviously have been recorded
in it, although unnecessary details may not have been noted.
P.W.2, the Police personnel who took the Respondent to the Police
Station did not observe that the Respondent appeared to be drunk,
while P.W.10, the Medical Officer of District Hospital, Singtam, who
examined the Respondent on 01.08.2017, at 12.40 a.m., deposed
inter alia as follows;
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 6
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
“……His breath had no smell of alcohol at the
time of his examination. His gait was steady and
speech clear. His chest was bilaterally normal, per
abdomen was soft. ……
On local examination he had no external
injuries. ……”
(Emphasis supplied)
P.W.6 was witness to the Respondent coming out from the room
and thereafter being taken away by the Police but makes no
mention of him being drunk. P.W.12, the Investigating Officer (for
short, “I.O.”) formally arrested the Respondent but does not state
that when he forwarded the Respondent for medical examination,
he noticed that he was drunk.
(b) That having been said, it is the case of the Prosecution
that the Respondent caught hold of the Prosecutrix‟s neck, carried
her to a room in her house forcefully, tore off her clothes and
committed rape on her. It is worth mentioning that the torn clothes
of the Prosecutrix finds no place in the Material Objects exhibited
by the Prosecution before the Learned Trial Court. In the same
thread, it may be noticed that the Prosecutrix has not described
which article of her clothing was torn by the Respondent or that the
Police seized the said torn clothes, neither does P.W.2, the Police
personnel who was the first person to reach the P.O. after the
alleged incident, make any mention of seeing the victim in torn
clothes. P.W.3, the victim‟s mother, testified that the victim had
informed her that the Respondent had torn off her clothes and then
raped her but she too failed to enlighten the Court of the state of
the Prosecutrix‟s clothes, whether she saw the Prosecutrix wearing
torn clothes, or that the Police had seized such clothes from the
Prosecutrix. P.W.4, the father of the Prosecutrix, stated that the
Prosecutrix had informed him that one person had entered her
house forcefully and „tried‟ to force himself on her. His evidence, in
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 7
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
fact, makes no mention of rape on the Prosecutrix. This witness
found the Prosecutrix standing in the court yard of her house when
he reached there. He noticed that she was wearing her night dress
but did not state that it was torn. P.W.6 too reached the P.O. and
witnessed the Police giving the Respondent his clothes through the
ventilator of the room, which was allegedly locked from the inside
but his evidence does not reveal that the Prosecutrix was wearing
torn clothes, although he had witnessed P.W.3 and the Prosecutrix
standing outside her house. P.W.7 was the Doctor who examined
the victim at 12.10 a.m. on 01.08.2017, the alleged assault having
taken place at 6.30 p.m. on 31.07.2017. He makes no mention of
any torn clothes on the person of the Prosecutrix, nor was any such
item of clothing forwarded to P.W.9, the Scientific Officer at RFSL,
Saramsa, for analysis. P.W.12, the I.O., furnished no evidence of
seizure of the alleged torn clothes neither did he state that he
found her in such a state or that she showed him the said clothes.
Hence, the testimony of the Prosecutrix with regard to her torn
clothes appears to be a figment of her imagination totally devoid of
truth and unsubstantiated by evidence.
7.(a) Secondly, there are glaring anomalies regarding the
time when P.W.1 reported the incident to P.W.3 and P.W.6.
According to her, the incident occurred at 6.30 p.m. After the
Respondent allegedly pushed her away, she had the opportunity to
flee from the room whereupon she telephonically informed P.W.3
about the incident. P.W.3, however, stated that she received the
call from P.W.1 informing her of the incident at around 9 p.m. to
10 p.m. According to P.W.6, he too received telephonic information
from P.W.1 at 9 p.m. to 10 p.m., which is almost three hours after
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 8
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
the alleged incident. As per P.W.1, her information to P.W.6 was
only telephonic, while P.W.6 under cross-examination, revealed
that after the phone call, P.W.1 personally came to his house when
he did not go to her house in response to her call. P.W.1 has
nowhere divulged that she visited the house of P.W.6. after making
a call to him. P.W.6 revealed further that it was only after about
one hour of the call of P.W.1 that he, along with the Police
personnel, reached her house.
(b) Added to this, is the anomalous evidence of P.W.2, who
stated that Head Constable, one Lakpa Tshering Bhutia of Sang
Police Out Post, received a call from P.W.6 on 31.07.2017, at
around 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., informing that the Respondent had
entered the Prosecutrix‟s house. Contrarily, P.W.6, as reflected
supra, duly supported by the evidence of P.W.2, individually reveal
that they received the call from the Prosecutrix at 9 p.m. to 10
p.m., rendering the Prosecution story suspicious, besides pointing
towards shoddy investigation and non-verification of necessary
facts. If P.W.2 and P.W.6 received the call from P.W.1 at 9 p.m. to
10 p.m., it is rather strange that the Police Out Post received the
information from P.W.6 at 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. This inconsistency
remains unexplained by the Prosecution.
(c) According to P.W.2, after the Head Constable of the
Out Post informed him of the call from P.W.6, he informed his
Senior Officer at the Singtam Police Station, who directed him to go
to the Prosecutrix‟s house, which he complied with, taking along
with him the said Head Constable. The Head Constable, however, is
not a Prosecution Witness for unexplained reasons. P.W.6 further
deposed that after he informed the Police personnel at the Out
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 9
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
Post, they arrived at his house and he along with them viz., one
Eden Bhutia and Bhai Bhutia, went to the house of the Prosecutrix.
Both Eden Bhutia and Bhai Bhutia are not witnesses in the instant
case thereby leading this Court to draw an adverse inference under
Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
evidence of P.W.2 belies the evidence of P.W.6 with regard to him
(P.W.6) having been accompanied by Police personnel to the P.O.
The Prosecutrix also does not state that P.W.6 came to her house
together with any Police personnel. According to her, the Police
came to her house about half an hour to one hour after the call.
That, P.W.6 also came to her house and knocked on the door of the
room where the Respondent was present. The Prosecution story on
the above discussed aspects are haphazard, inconceivable and
thereby fails to convince this Court of the events that transpired.
8. Another relevant factor is that according to the
Prosecutrix, her mother P.W.3, lives about twenty minutes away
from her house but P.W.3 to the contrary, stated that the
Prosecutrix lives at a distance of about five minutes walk from her
residence. The house of P.W.6, as stated by him, is at a distance of
about five to eight minutes walk from the house of the Prosecutrix.
This leads one to mull over as to why the Prosecutrix did not take
shelter in her mother‟s house after having fled from the room, or
why P.W.3 and P.W.6 went belatedly to her house when it was a
short walk from their respective residences. The veracity of the
evidence of the Prosecutrix and the Prosecution witnesses do not
inspire confidence and appear to be far-fetched, as the evidence
discussed above is rife with contradictions at every turn.
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 10
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
9. While considering the medical evidence of the
Prosecutrix, the incident allegedly occurred at around 6.30 p.m. on
31.07.2017. She was forwarded to the District Hospital, Singtam
where she was examined by P.W.7, the Consultant Gynaecologist
at 12.10 a.m. of 01.08.2017 viz., after about five hours of the
alleged incident. She had not bathed or changed her clothes after
the alleged incident, as stated by her to P.W.7. P.W.7 prepared his
Report, Exhibit 4. He deposed inter alia as under;
“……I examined the victim after taking due
consent from her.
On my examination the victim was conscious,
cooperative and all her vitals were stable.
On local examination;
One bruise was found over her right neck(sic)
and four bruises were found over her left neck(sic).
There were no bleeding from the bruises. No injury
or bleeding was present over the breast(sic),
abdomen and other parts of the body.
Per vaginal inspection-No any(sic) bruise,
injury present over the Perineal region, vulva and
vagina.
Per vaginal examination-No fresh injury
present over the hymen and vagina.
Vaginal swab and vaginal wash was collected
and sent for examination to determine the presence
of spermatozoa. Urine for pregnancy test was found
to be negative. ……”
(Emphasis supplied)
The medical examination thus revealed no fresh injuries on the
person or the genital of the Prosecutrix despite her claim of use of
force by the Respondent. The Doctor went on to identify MO I and
MO II as the glass vials containing the vaginal wash and vaginal
swab respectively, of the Prosecutrix collected by him. Under cross-
examination, it came to light inter alia as follows;
“……I asked the patient whether she had taken
a bath or wash(sic) her clothes after the alleged
incident and in reply to that she said she had
neither taken a bath nor washed her clothes.
I had taken the vaginal wash and vaginal swab
on the request of the police. I have also answered in
my medical report Exbt. 4, the other requests made
by the I.O. It is true that in my medical report Exbt.
4, I have mentioned “the patient refused to give her
undergarments and other clothing for examination”.
I am not able to identify the signature of the
Pathologist in Exbt. 4 who has given his/her opinion
as “no motile/non-motile spermatozoa seen in the
sample studied.”
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 11
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
It is true that my examination as recorded in
medical report Exbt. 4 does not show a possible
forceful rape on the victim. ……”
(Emphasis supplied)
P.W.7 recorded in Exhibit 4 that the Prosecutrix refused to give her
undergarment and other clothing for examination with no reason
assigned by her for such refusal and investigation too is silent on
this count. The age of the bruises found on the left and right
portion of the Prosecutrix‟s neck, was not disclosed by P.W.7,
hence, it is not clear whether the bruises were fresh and thereby
allegedly caused by the Respondent or whether they were old
injuries. The examination of the vagina of the victim too revealed
no fresh injuries although she claimed to have been forcibly raped,
thereby raising doubts about her allegation of penetrative sexual
assault.
10.(a) Along with the evidence of P.W.7 supra, it is relevant to
examine the evidence of P.W.9, the Scientific Officer, RFSL. She
examined MO I and MO II (detailed supra). She also examined MO
III, the underwear of the Respondent and MO IV and MO V, two
glass vials containing the penile swab of the Respondent. In these
Exhibits, neither blood nor semen, or any other body fluid could be
detected.
(b) The collective evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.9, when
meticulously examined, fail to establish that the Prosecutrix had
been subjected to rape by the Respondent nor did the Prosecution
fortify their case with any other evidence. The medical and
scientific evidence therefore fail to support the Prosecution case.
(c) The Pathologist who had given his/her opinion on
Exhibit 4 regarding the absence of motile or non-motile
spermatozoa in the samples studied, was not made a Prosecution
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 12
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
witness. P.W.10, the Medical Officer who examined the Respondent
at District Hospital, Singtam stated that he did not detect any stain
marks on MO III, the undergarment of the Respondent.
11.(a) This Court is aware of the settled position of law that
every rape victim need not have injuries on her body to prove her
case (See Krishan vs. State of Haryana6). Further, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court observed in State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. the accused7,
inter alia, as follows;
“18. ………………The absence of visible marks of
injuries on the person of the prosecutrix on the date
of her medical examination would not necessarily
mean that she had not suffered any injuries or that
she had offered no resistance at the time of
commission of the crime. Absence of injuries on the
person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an
evidence of falsity of the allegation or an evidence of
consent on the part of the prosecutrix. It will all
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
……”
However, the Prosecution must establish with some trustworthy
evidence that the Prosecutrix had indeed been subjected to sexual
assault which, in the instant matter, has not been furnished.
(b) It may relevantly be noted here that after having
committed a heinous offence, in the ordinary course of human
nature, the first instinct of an accused would be to flee the place of
occurrence but the incongruously unbelievable version of P.W.1 is
that the Respondent continued to stay inside the room where he
had committed the alleged offence and bolted himself from inside
to boot. The evidence of P.W.6 is to the effect that P.W.1 had
visited his house subsequent to the call made by her. It is rather
surprising that in that interval the Respondent although left alone,
still made no effort to escape. No investigation was conducted on
6
(2014) 13 SCC 574
7
(2000) 5 SCC 30
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 13
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
this aspect. P.W.1 is evidently spinning a yarn regarding the
incident which fails to find substantiation by evidence.
12.(a) In Ganesan vs. State (supra), relied on by the Appellant,
reference has been made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, to a
catena of decisions wherein it was observed that conviction can be
based on the sole testimony of the victim with the caveat that such
testimony must be found to be reliable and trustworthy.
Consequently, we cannot lose sight of the fact that a sole witness
must be a sterling witness and the evidence given by her must be
cogent, consistent and the version of the events should be
unassailable. On the anvil of these enumerated qualities, we are
constrained to opine that these are lacking in the instant case and
the Prosecutrix, in no way, can be described as a sterling witness.
Her solitary evidence is not trustworthy, cogent or unblemished.
(b) The Prosecution version that the Respondent has not
explained the incriminating evidence against him under Section
313 Cr.P.C. besides which, he also had the option of explaining it
under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, cuts no ice in view of
the fact that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Nagaraj vs. State,
represented by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Tamil Nadu 8 observed
inter alia as under;
“……………………………………………………………………..
15. In the context of this aspect of the law it
has been held by this Court in Parsuram
Pandey v. State of Bihar [(2004) 13 SCC 189: 2005
SCC (Cri) 113] that Section 313 CrPC is imperative
to enable an accused to explain away any
incriminating circumstances proved by the
prosecution. It is intended to benefit the accused, its
corollary being to benefit the court in reaching its
final conclusion; its intention is not to nail the
accused, but to comply with the most salutary and
fundamental principle of natural justice i.e. audi
alteram partem, as explained in Asraf Ali v. State of
Assam [(2008) 16 SCC 328:(2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 278].
……………………………Having made this clarification,
refusal to answer any question put to the accused by8
(2015) 4 SCC 739
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 14
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutiathe court in relation to any evidence that may have
been presented against him by the prosecution or
the accused giving an evasive or unsatisfactory
answer, would not justify the court to return a
finding of guilt on this score. Even if it is assumed
that his statements do not inspire acceptance, it
must not be lost sight of that the burden is cast on
the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Once this burden is met, the statements
under Section 313 assume significance to the extent
that the accused may cast some incredulity on the
prosecution version. It is not the other way around;
in our legal system the accused is not required to
establish his innocence. ……”
(Emphasis supplied)
13.(a) Besides, the Prosecution is to relevantly note that
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not intended to relieve
the Prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. This Section will apply to cases where
the Prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which
reasonable inference can be drawn about the existence of certain
other facts, unless the accused, by virtue of his special knowledge
regarding such facts, fails to offer any explanation which might
thus lead the Court to draw a different inference. In other words,
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is designed to meet certain
exceptional cases where it is an impossibility for the Prosecution to
establish certain facts. (See State of W.B. vs. Mir Mohammad Omar
and Others9).
(b) At this juncture, it may be noticed that the Respondent
produced three witnesses. The Prosecution was afforded fair
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It emerged from the
evidence of D.Ws.1, 2 and 3 that the Respondent was not unknown
to the Prosecutrix as alleged by her but they had prior
acquaintance. Under cross-examination, D.W.1, the wife of the
Respondent, revealed that in the month of October, 2014, the
Prosecutrix had purchased a carpet from her shop on credit, the
9
(2000) 8 SCC 382
Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 15
State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia
cost of which was Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) only, and
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, was paid by the
Prosecutrix to D.W.1. D.W.3, evidently an acquaintance of D.W.1
deposed that the Prosecutrix had been introduced to him by the
Respondent as a relative of his wife. The evidence of the D.Ws.
adds to the doubts about the veracity of the evidence of the
Prosecutrix.
14. In consideration of the gamut of facts and
circumstances of the case, the contradictory evidence on record, as
discussed in detail hereinabove, the medical evidence and the
scientific evidence, all miserably fail to buttress the Prosecution
case. Thus, the evidence of the Prosecutrix definitely lacks the
quality of being sterling neither is it absolutely trustworthy.
Resultantly, we are in agreement with the finding of the Learned
Trial Court that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
a reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned Judgment warrants no
interference whatsoever.
15. Consequently, we find no merit in the Appeal which
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.
17. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial
Court, for information.
18. Lower Court Records be remitted forthwith.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) ( Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari )
Judge Chief Justice
21.07.2021 21.07.2021
ml Approved for reporting : Yes