SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State vs Mohd. Faizan & Ors on 22 April, 2019

$~3
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
%JudgmentReservedon:15thFebruary,2019
Judgementpronouncedon:22ndApril,2019
+CRL.LP.404/2018
STATE…..Appellant
Through:Mr.RaviNayak,APPforStatewithSI
Balbir,PSK.Khas.
Versus
MOHD.FAIZANORS…..Respondent
Through:Mr.P.K.Saxena,Advocate(DHCLSC)
forrespondentAshraf.

CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICESIDDHARTHMRIDUL
HON’BLEMS.JUSTICESANGITADHINGRASEHGAL
SANGITADHINGRASEHGAL,J.

1.BythepresentLeavePetitionfiledunderSection378(1)SectionoftheCode
ofCriminalProcedure,(hereinafterreferredas’SectionCr.P.C.’),theState
seeksleavetoappealagainstthejudgmentdated13.03.2018passedby
thelearnedTrialCourtinSessionCaseNo.44614/15,wherebyallthe
respondents(accusedbeforetheTrialCourt)wereacquittedofthe
chargespunishableunderSections307/Section344/Section365/Section366/Section376/Section34ofthe
IndianPenalCode(hereinafterreferredas’SectionIPC’).

2.Brieffactsofthecase,asnoticedbythelearnedTrialCourt,areas
under:-

“(i)ThatDDNo.35-Awasregisteredonreceivinga
CallfromthecontrolroomatPoliceStationKhajuri
Khas,on04.02.2009atabout12.10am,inreceiptofthe
informationthat2-3personshaveforciblykidnappedone
minorgirlandthebrotheroftheminorgirlhasbeen

CRL.LP.404/2018Page1of23
givenknifeblowsbythedelinquentaccusedpersons.The
saidDDwasmarkedtoSIKunwarPalSingh,and
accordinglyhewasinformedthattheinjuredhasbeen
alreadytakentoBaraHinduRaoHospital,subsequentto
whichSIKunwarPalSinghalongwithConstable(Ct.)
BrijpaldepartedforBaraHinduRaoHospitalandon
theirarrival,theinjuredRaviKumarwasdeclaredfitfor
recordinghisstatementandaccordinglyhisstatement
wasrecorded.

(ii)BasedonhisstatementrecordedbySIKunwar
PalSingh(PW-14)andthecontentsofhisMedical
ExaminationReport,FIRNo.24/09wasregisteredunder
Section307/Section363/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode.Onthe
sameday,accusedMukeshMishrawasarrestedvide
arrestmemo(Ex.PW1/A)andhisdisclosurestatement
wasrecorded.Thereaftertheaccusedwasmedically
examinedandwasaccordinglyremandedtothejudicial
custody.Onthe08.02.2009,accusedMohd.Faizanwas
arrestedfromABlock,GaliNo.6,Part-II,1stPushta,
SoniaViharvidearrestmemo(Ex.PW1/D),hisdisclosure
statementwasrecordedandthereaftertheaccusedwas
medicallyexaminedandwasaccordinglyremandedto
thejudicialcustody.

(iii)Furtherduringthecourseoftheinvestigation,on
29.03.2009,thevictimgirlchildwhowaskidnapped
duringtheaforesaidquarrelon04.02.2009,arrivedat
PolicestationKhajuriKhasandonherarrivalthevictim
wasinquiredbySIKunwarPalSinghandCt.Rubi(PW-

4),withregardtotheherrescue.Onwhichthevictimgirl
childsaidthataccusednamedAshrafisresponsiblefor
herkidnappingbecausehehadwrongfullyconfinedher
inanunknownroomforacertainlylongtime.Shefurther
addedthataccusedAshrafusedtofrequentlybeather
andsexuallyassaulther,whichwascompletelyagainst
herfreewillanddesire.Accordingly,SIKunwarPal
SinghseizedandsealedtheBurquaandtheHijab,which
wasusedbytheminorvictimgirlforheremancipation
fromthecustodyoftheaccused.Subsequenttorecording
herstatement,shewasmedicallyexaminedatGTB

CRL.LP.404/2018Page2of23
HospitalandwasthereaftersenttoNirmalChhayaat
NariNiketan.StatementofthevictimU/s164SectionCr.P.Cwas
recordedon31.03.2009andaccordinglynon-bailable
warrantswereissuedagainstaccusedAshraf.

(iv)On15.06.2009,aninformationwasreceivedthat
accusedAshrafwillbearrivingatTSRStand,Main
Road,ChauhanPatti,Sabharpurandaccordingly,
accusedAshrafwasarrestedattheallegedlocationvide
arrestmemo(Ex.PW11/1).Hisdisclosurestatementwas
recordedandwasmedicallyexaminedatGTBHospital
videMLCNo.2582/2009andwasaccordinglyremanded
tothejudicialcustody.

(v)ItisworthmentioningthatinitiallyFIRno.
24/2009wasregisteredunderSection307/Section363/Section34IPC,
onlyandonthestatementoftheprosecutrix,
supplementarychargesheetwasfiledvideorderdated
20.07.2010,chargesU/s307/34SectionIPC,365/34SectionIPC,344/34
SectionIPCand366/34SectionIPCwasframedagainsttherespondents
andadditionalchargeU/s376SectionIPCwasframedagainst
therespondentno.3.”

3.Tobringhometheguiltoftherespondents,theprosecutionhas
examined15witnessesinall.Statementsoftherespondentswere
recordedunderSection313ofCr.P.C.whereintheydeniedthe
chargesframedagainstthemandclaimedtobefalselyimplicatedin
thecase.

4.Afterhearingthecounselsforbothsidesandonappreciationofentire
evidenceavailableonrecord,thelearnedTrialCourtacquittedthe
respondentsforthechargedoffences.

5.Mr.Nayak,learnedcounselappearingfortheStatecontendedthatthe
impugnedjudgmentdated13.03.2018isbasedonconjectures,
surmisesandthelearnedTrialCourthasnotappreciatedthetestimony

CRL.LP.404/2018Page3of23
oftheprosecutrixinitsrightperspectiveignoringthewell-settled
propositionoflawthatthesoletestimonyofthevictimofsexual
offenceissufficienttobaseconvictionoftheaccused.

6.LearnedcounselfortheStatefurthercontendedthatthelearnedTrial
courthasfailedtoacknowledgethetestimonyofvictim
PW-2(prosecutrix),PW-6RaviKumar(brotheroftheprosecutrix)
andPW-8PramodMuni(stepfatheroftheprosecutrix)andplaced
undueweightageontheminordiscrepanciesinthetestimoniesofthe
prosecutionwitnesses,contrarytowhichallthetestimoniesare
consistentandcorroborativeinnatureandtherearenomajor
omissionsandcontradictionsintheaforesaidtestimonies.

7.Hefurthercontendedthattheaccusedisahabitualoffenderandhad
alreadybeenconvictedinFIRNo.276/2008fortheoffences
punishableunderSection366/Section376IPCagainstthesamevictim.
Learnedcounselforthestatefurthercontendedthatthelearned
sessionjudgefailedtotakenoticeoftheknifeinjuriesinflictedonthe
neckoftheinjuredRaviKumarandignoredthetestimonyofPW-13
Dr.JayachandraCMO,whoexaminedtheinjuredandopinedthat
thereisnopossibilitythattheinjuriescanbeselfinflicted.Learned
counselforthestatefurthercontendedthatthetestimonyofPW-6
RaviKumar(brotheroftheprosecutrix)andPW-8PramodMuni
(stepfatheroftheprosecutrix)isclearandunambiguoustoprovethe
guiltoftheaccusedpersons.

8.Percontra,learnedcounselfortherespondentcontendedthatthereis
noinfirmityintheimpugnedjudgmentpassedbythelearnedTrial
CourtandnointerferenceiscalledbythisCourt.Hefurthercontended

CRL.LP.404/2018Page4of23
thatthetestimonyofprosecutrixisbristledwithalotof
contradictions,inconsistenciesandimprovements.Shehasgiven
differentversionsinherstatementsrecordedatdifferentstages.
Counseladmittedthatitistruethatsoletestimonyoftheprosecutrix
inacaseofrapecanbebasedforconvictionoftheaccusedsubjectto
sameinspiresconfidenceoftheCourt,butininstantcase,thesole
testimonyoftheprosecutrixisnotsufficienttoestablishthecaseof
rapeagainsttherespondents.

9.ItisfurthersubmittedthattheFIRNo.276/2008,registeredatPolice
StationKhajuriKhas,inwhichtherespondentshavebeenconvictedis
ofnorelevancetothepresentcasebecausethesamehasbeen
registeredonthebasisofaseparateincident.

10.Wehaveheardthelearnedcounselforthepartiesandcarefully
examinedtheimpugnedjudgmentandthematerialavailableonrecord
aswell.

11.Itisasettledprincipleoflawthatconvictioncanbebasedonthesole
testimonyofthevictimofsexualassaultwithoutcorroborationfrom
anyotherevidence.Thestatementofthevictimisthemostreliable
thananyotherwitness.Wherethetestimonyofvictimofsexual
assaultinstallstheconfidenceinCourt,thesamecanbereliedupon
forconvictionoftheaccused.Itisalsoawellsettledprincipleoflaw
thatcorroborationasaconditionforjudicialrelianceonthetestimony
ofthevictimisnotarequirementoflawbutaguidancetoprudence
underthegivencircumstances.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page5of23

12.InStateofHimachalPradeshVs.MangaSingh,reportedin2018
(15)SCALE895,theApexCourthasobservedasunder:-

“11.Theconvictioncanbesustainedonthesole
testimonyoftheprosecutrix,ifitinspiresconfidence.
Theconvictioncanbebasedsolelyonthesolitary
evidenceoftheprosecutrixandnocorroborationbe
requiredunlesstherearecompellingreasonswhich
necessitatethecourtstoinsistforcorroborationofher
statement.Corroborationofthetestimonyofthe
prosecutrixisnotarequirementoflaw;butaguidance
ofprudenceunderthegivenfactsandcircumstances.
Minorcontractionsorsmalldiscrepanciesshouldnotbe
agroundforthrowingtheevidenceoftheprosecutrix.

12.Itiswellsettledbyacatenaofdecisionsofthe
SupremeCourtthatcorroborationisnotasinequa
nonforconvictioninarapecase.Iftheevidenceofthe
victimdoesnotsufferfromanybasicinfirmityandthe
‘probabilitiesfactor’doesnotrenderitunworthyof
credence.Asageneralrule,thereisnoreasontoinsist
oncorroborationexceptfrommedicalevidence.
However,havingregardtothecircumstancesofthe
case,medicalevidencemaynotbeavailable.Insuch
cases,solitarytestimonyoftheprosecutrixwouldbe
sufficienttobasetheconviction,ifitinspiresthe
confidenceofthecourt.”

13.Returningtothefactsofthepresentcase,themootpointinvolvedfor
considerationinpresentleavepetitioniswhetherevidenceadducedby
theprosecution,particularlythetestimonyoftheprosecutrix(PW-2)is
trustworthy,credibleandworthyofreliance.

14.Fromtheperusalofrecordittranspiresthattherearevarious
contradictionsbetweenthetestimoniesofthevictimrecordedbythe
policeandthestatementrecordedunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.As
perherinitialstatementrecordedunderSection161oftheCr.P.C.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page6of23

(Ex.-PW-2/DA)bythepolice,shecategoricallystatedthat’on
29.03.09shewasconveyedbyAshraftoJamaMasjidonthepretextof
meetingwithherfatherandheinstructedhertostayatthealleged
spot.Subsequentlyshemetwithaboynamedwasimattheaforesaid
locationwhotransportedhertoSaboli(tohergrandfather’shouse)
andthenthereaftertothePoliceStationKhajuriKhas.However,
whenherstatementwasrecordedunderSection164oftheCr.P.C
(Ex.PW2/A),shealteredherversionandstatedthat”on04.01.2009,
threeaccusedpersonskidnappedherfromherhouseandhadinflicted
stabinjuryontheneckofherbrother.Ontheconcurrent
circumstances,whenshehadraisedhueandcry,”accusedMukesh
Mishrahadthreatenedherwiththewarningofinflictingknifeinjury
onherneck.Accordingly,aftershewasconveyedtoJamaMasjidby
Ashrafonthepretextofmeetingwithherfather.Shehadsubsequently
metwithanunknownboynamelywasim,whohadhelpedherin
arrivingatherparents’house.Afterarrivingatherparent’shome,the
“doorwasfoundlocked”duetowhich”wasimhadinformedthe
policeofficialsabouttheirlocationandaccordinglypolicehad
arrivedatthespotandhadtakenhercustody.”

15.TheprosecutrixwasexaminedasPW-2andduringherexamination-

in-chiefdated20.03.2012,shestatedthatrespondentAshrafalong
withhisassociateMohd.FaizanandMukeshMishrahadkidnapped
herfromthefirstfloorofherhouse.Therelevantportionfromthe
examinationinchiefofPW-2readsasunder:-

“On03.02.2009atabout10.45pm,Iwaspresentina
roomof1stfloorofmyaforesaidhouse.AccusedAshraf
presentinCourt(correctlyidentified),alongwithhis

CRL.LP.404/2018Page7of23
associatesnamelyMohd.FaizanandMukeshMishra,
bothpresentinCourt(correctlyidentified)andanother
associatehadcomeatmyaforesaidresidencebyTata-
407(Tempo)andtheytookmeforciblytoaunknown
placebyaforesaidvehicleinthepresenceofmybrother
RaviKumar.WhenmybrotherRavihadopposedoneof
associateofaccusedAshrafhadcausedstabbedinjury
onhisneck”.

16.Further,sheappearedforherexaminationinchiefon05.02.2014,
whereinshedeposedthatshedidnotknowrespondentAshraf
personallybecausehewasthefriendofherbrotherandonthealleged
dateoftheincident,hehadtakenhertoanunknownplaceand
committedpenetrativesexualassaultonher,consequenttowhichshe
deposedinverselywithregardtoherrescue.Relevantportionfromthe
examinationinchiefdated05.02.2014readsasunder:-

“Ihaveneverbeentoanycourt,policestationorpublic
officepriortothepresentcases.Ididnotknowaccused
Ashrafpersonallybuthewasfriendofmybrother.
Ashrafhadtakenmetosomeunknownplace.Idonot
knowwhethertheplacewassituatedinDelhioroutside
Delhi.Ashrafhadcommittedsexualintercoursewith
meagainstmywill2-3times.Itwasaroomwhere
Ashrafhadtakenme.Idonotknowwhoseroomitwas.
AshrafhadtakenmetothatroominVanofwhitecolor
andwehadreachedtheabovesaidunknownplaceafter
about2-3hours.Ashrafhadkeptmeinthatroomfor
twodays.AshrafusedtobeatmeandthereforeIwasin
averybadconditioninthatroom.AftertwodaysAshraf
hadtakenmetosomeotherplaceinaautorickshaw.
ThereoneladywaspresentAshrafhadleftmewiththat
lady.Onthesamedayintheeveningpolicehadcomeat
thatplaceandpolicecalledmeandtakenmeand
broughtmetoDelhi.Thatladyhadalsoaccompanied
thepolice.Atthetimewhenpolicehadcometheywere
withaladyandlaterIcometoknowthatshehad

CRL.LP.404/2018Page8of23
disclosedaboutmywhereaboutstopolice.Policehad
recordedmystatement.

AfterIwaskidnappedbyaccusedAshrafandhis
associateson03.02.2009fromthefirstfloorofmy
house,Iwastakentosomeplacebutsinceitwasnight
timeIcannotsayastowhatplacethatwas.Atthatplace
Ashrafhadaskedmenottomakestatementagainsthim
inthecourtregardingtheearlierincidentwhichwas
occurredabout5-6monthspriorto03.02.2009.Ashraf
hadalsoaskedmetomakeastatementinthecourt,the
factthatIhadaccompaniedhimofmyownfreewill.
Ashrafhadcommittedsexualintercoursewithmetwice
againstmywill.Ashrafhadkeptmeatthatplacefor3
days.Myconditionwasbadatthatplace.Iusedtoresist
theadvancesofAshrafforsexualintercourseanddueto
thisheusedtobeatme.InthatroomoneBurkhawas
lying.Intheeveningtimeoneunknownboyhadcome
onthatroomandheunboltedtheroomwhichwas
boltedfromoutsideandIhadapprisedthatunknown
boyaboutmyconditionandheagreedtohelpmeby
sayingthathewilltakemetotheplacewhereIwanted
togo”.

17.Duringhercrossexamination,bytheLearnedProsecutorfortheState,
sheadmittedthatshetoldthepolicethaton29.03.2009,respondent
Ashraftookhertoamasjidonthepretextofmeetingherfatherand
instructedhertostayattheaforesaidmasjid,subsequenttowhicha
personnamelyWasimapproachedherandhelpedherescapefromthe
situationandthatWasimwasthepersonwhohelpedherinreaching
thePoliceStationKhajuriKhas.Relevantportionfromhercross
examinationreadsasunder:-

“ItisalsocorrectthatIstatedtothepoliceinthesaid
statementthaton29.3.2009Ashraftookmeonthe
pretextofmeetingmyfatherwhowasarrivingandthen
throughvariousstreetsbroughtmetoamasjidwherehe

CRL.LP.404/2018Page9of23
leftmesayingthatIshouldwaitforhimandthathe
wouldcomeaftermeetingsomeoneandthenwentaway
andthereafter,onepersonnamelywasimcamethere
whomIcalledanddisclosedallthefactstohimandhe
broughtmetoSabolibutthereIcouldnotidentifythe
houseofmygrandparentsandthenonmyasking,
wasimbroughtmetomyhousebutnoonemetusthere
andIcametoknowthatmyparentshaveshiftedtoour
nativevillageaftervacatingthesaidhouseandIalso
cametoknowthatmyparentshadlodgedareportatPS
KhajuriKhasandthenwasimbroughtmetothePS
whereImadethestatement.

Itiscorrectthatwhenwasimmetme,Ihadkeptthe
burquawhichIwasmadetowearbyAshrafwhenhe
broughtmetotheroomfromthemosque,inpolythene
andhadproducedthesamebeforethepolice.”

18.Further,duringhercrossexaminationdirectedonbehalfoflearned
counselforrespondentFaizan,shehasdeposedthattherespondents
wereknowntoherpriortotheallegedincidentandshehadnotseen
respondentFaizanaftershewasabductedinthetempooratanyother
placewhereshewastaken:-

“Itiscorrectthatallthreeaccusedwereknowntome
priortotheincidentastheyresidednearmyhouse.Itis
correctthatmymotherenteredintoasecondmarriage
withSh.PramodMuniafterthedeathofmybiological
father.

BeforeshiftingtoChauhanPatti,wewereresidingat
ITO.ThehouseatChauhanPattiwassituatedonthe
roadside.Wewereresidingonthesecondfloorofthat
houseandtherewereothertenantsonthegroundfloor
andfirstfloorbutIdonotknowtheirnamesorother
particulars.Idonotknowtillwhattimeinthenlght,the
maingateofthesaidhouseusedtoremainopen.Ido
notknowifanyotherpersonapartfrommybrotherhad
comeformyrescueonthedayofIncident.Itiswrongto

CRL.LP.404/2018Page10of23
suggestthatsincenosuchincidenttookplace,therefore,
Ineverraisedanyalarmandaccordinglynoonecame
formyrescue.

Sinceitwasdarkinthenight,therefore,Icouldnotsee
howmanyotherpersonswerethereapartfromthe
threeaccusedwhohadcomeinthetempoon
03.02.2009andhadtakenmeaway.Itiswrongto
suggestthatIcouldnotseeduetodarknessastowho
cameupstairsandwhodownstalrsremainedandwho
waswaitingnearatthetempo.Therewasonlyone
roomonrentwithusonthesecondfloorofthehouse
wheremybothparentsandwefourbrothersandsisters
wereresidingthere.ItwasablgroombutIcannottell
theexactsize.Itwasaschoolearlier.Allmyfamily
membersweresittingintheroomatthetimeofIncident.
Mybrothersandsistersapartfrommybrotherwhotried
tosavemeweretooyoungatthattimeandwere
sleeping.Itismanytosuggestthatnosuchincidenttook
placeandassuch,noonegotup(Vol.latereveryone
came),themaingateisjustneartothestaircaseleading
fromthesecondfloor.ItiswrongtosuggestthatIcould
notseethefaceofthepersonwhogaveaknifeblowto
mybrother,duetodarkness.(Vol,Icouldseehisface
andhewasFaizanashehadsuddenlycomeinfrontof
myeyes).

ItiswrongtosuggestthatIhadstatedtothepolicein
mystatementdated29.03.2009,ExPW2/DAthatAshraf
hadtoldmethatmyfatherhadtakenRs,20000/-from
himandthatIdidnotknowwhogavetheknifeblow,
(ConfrontedwithportionAtoAofEx.PW2/DAwhere
itissorecorded).

ItiswrongtosuggestthatFaizanwasnotinvolvedin
theallegedincidentandhehasbeenfalselyimplicated
inthecaseatthebehestofmybrotherandfather.

ItiscorrectthatIhadnotseenFaizanafterIwas
abductedinthetempoatanytheirplacewhereIwas
taken”.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page11of23

19.Accordingly,duringhercrossexaminationbylearnedcounselfor
respondentsMukeshMishraandAshraf,shehasconsiderably
contradictedwithherexamination-in-chiefandwithherstatement
recordedU/s164SectionCr.P.C.(Ex.PW2/A):-

“CourtQuestion:Howdidyoucometoknowaccused
Ashraf?

Ans.HewashavingashopinthegalithroughwhichI
usedtogoformytuitionsandIknewhimonlyforthat.

Ihadnotstatedbeforethiscourtinmyexaminationin
chiefthatIdidnotknowAshrafpersonallybuthewas
friendofmybrother.(ConfrontedwithportionAtoAof
examinationinchiefdated05.02.2014)

IhadnotstatedtothelearnedMMinmystatement
Ex.PW2/Athataccusedashrafhadcommittedsexual
intercoursewithmeagainstmywilltwotothreetimes.
(Vol.Itwasneveraskedfromme).Ihadnotstatedto
theLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/Athataccused
Ashrafhadtakenmetoaroom.orthatIwastakenina
whitecolorvanandwehadreachedtheabovesaid
unknownplaceafterabouttwo-threehours,orthatIwas
keptbyAshrafinthatroomfortwodays,orthatheused
tobeatmeandthereforeIwasinverybadconditionin
thatroom.(Vol.Itwasneveraskedfromme).Ihadnot
statedtotheLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/Athat
aftertwodaysAshrafhadtakenmetosomeotherplace
inanautorickshawandoneladywaspresentthereand
leftmewiththatlady,orthatinthesameeveningpolice
hadcomeatthatplaceandpolicecalledmeandtaken
meandbroughtmetoDelhi,orthatthatladyalso
accompaniedthepolice,orthatlaterIcametoknow
thatthesaidladyhaddisclosedaboutmywhereabouts
tothepolice.(Vol.ItwasneveraskedfrommeandI
hadansweredwhateverquestionswereputtome.Ihad
notstatedtotheLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/A
thatafterIwaskidnappedbyaccusedAshrafandtaken
tosomeplace,hehadaskedmenottomakestatement
againsthimintheCourtregardingtheearlierincident

CRL.LP.404/2018Page12of23
whichoccurredaboutfive-sixmonthspriorto
03.02.2009andhadaskedmetoamakeastatementin
theCourtthatIhadaccompaniedhimofmyownfree
will.(Vol.ItwasneveraskedfrommeandIhad
answeredwhateverquestionswereputtome).Ihadnot
statedtheLd.MMinmystatementEx.PW2/Athat
Ashrafhadkeptmeatthatplaceforthreedaysandmy
conditionwasbad,orthatIusedtoresisttheadvances
ofAshrafforsexualintercourseandduetothisheused
tobeatme,orthatburqawaslyinginthatroom.orthat
intheevening,oneunknownboyhadcomeatthat
roomandheunboltedtheroomwhichwasboltedfrom
outsideandIapprisedthatunknownboyaboutmy
conditionandheagreedtohelpmesayingthathewill
takemetotheplacewhereIwantedtogo,orthatIwore
theburqaandcameoutofthatroomalongwiththat
unknownboyandwenttomyparents’houseatSonia
Viharbutfoundittobelockedatthattimeandon
enquiry,oneofmyneighbortoldmethatmyparents
alongwithmybrotherhadgonetoournativevillage
beingscaredaftermykidnappingandinjuriestomy
brotherandapprehendingsomeuntowardincident,or
thatthereafter,Iwenttomygrandparents(mama-mami
ofmyfather)atNandNagariwhotriedtocontactmy
parentsbuttheycouldnotbecontactedandthereafter,
theyinformedthepoliceofKhajuriKhaswhicharrived
atthehouseofmysaidgrandparentsandbroughtme
tothePSandthatImyselftriedtocontactmyparents
onphonebuttheycouldnotbecontacted.(Vol.Itwas
neveraskedfrommeandIhadansweredwhatever
questionswereputtome).

20.Contradictingtheversionoftheprosecutrix,theInvestigatingOfficer
(PW-14)iscompletelysilentabouttherecoveryofthevictimandthe
victimbeingbroughttothepolicestationbysomeotherboy,whowas
unknownorwasnamedasWasim.Healsofailedtocorroboratethe
factthatthevictimwasrecoveredattheinstanceofthepolicefrom

CRL.LP.404/2018Page13of23
hergrandparents’houseatNandNagri.Relevantportionfromhis
statementrecordedon05.06.2017readsasunder:-

“On29.03.2009,thevictimcameatthePS.Imade
inquiriesfromherinthepresenceofladyCt.Rubi.I
preparedthememoregardingrecoveryofthevictim.The
saidmemodated29.03.2009,alreadyEx.PW4/Abears
mysignatureatpointB.Irecordedherstatementunder
Sectionsection161Cr.P.C.Thevictimproducedaburquaand
hijabtome.Ikeptthesameinapolythenepackand
sealedthesameinaclothpullandawiththesealofKP
andseizedthesame.Theseizurememoalready
Ex.PW4/BnearsmysignatureatpointBandthevictim
puthersignatureatpointC.IcalledtheNGOofficial,
whocounseledthevictim.Thereafter,thevictimwassent
toGTBHospitalalongwithladyCt.Rubiformedical
examination.Afterhermedicalexamination,ladyCt.
RubicametothePSalongwiththevictimandhanded
overherMLCandthreepullindasinsealedcondition
withthesealofMLCGTBHospitalalongwiththe
samplesealtome.Iseizedthesaidpullindasandsample
seal.Theseizurememodated29.03.2009;already
Ex.PW4/CbearsmysignatureatpointB.Idepositedall
theseizedarticlesinthemalkahana.”

21.However,whileanalyzingtheaforesaiddepositionoftheprosecutrix,
theentireversionregardingherrecoverycomesunderashadowof
doubtasthesamealsodoesnotcorroboratethetestimonyofthe
investigatingofficeri.e.(PW-14).Auxiliary,theprosecutionhas
relieduponthetestimoniesofRaviKumar(PW-6)i.e.brotherofthe
prosecutrixandPramodMuni(PW-8)i.e.stepfatherofthe
prosecutrix,astheyhavealsotestifiedwithregardtothealleged
incident.AstheFIRinthepresentcasewasregisteredafterrecording
thestatementofRaviKumar(PW-6)whereinhehascategorically
statedthatrespondentAshrafalongwithhis3-4associatestrespassed

CRL.LP.404/2018Page14of23
intohishouseandforciblyabductedhissister.Onresisting,the
allegedcrime,oneofthem,stabbedhimwithaknife,leavinganinjury
onhisneck.Relevantportionfromhisstatementrecordedon
29.04.2016readsasunder:-

“On03.2.2009,atabout10.45pmIwaspresentonthe
groundfloorofmyhouse.Atthattime,oneperson
namelyAshrafcametoourhousealongwith3-4persons
inTATA407.Theyallwenttothefirstfloorofmyhouse
andstartedtakingalwaysmyyoungersister/victimalong
withthem.WhenIandmyfatherresisted,Ashraf
exhortedhisassociatestokillmeandthenoneoftheboy
inflictedknifeblowonmyneckandthereaftertheyall
kidnappedthevictimandtookheralongwiththemin
TATA407,IknewAsrafasheisinmylocality.”

22.Furtherinhiscrossexaminationdated29.04.2016bythelearned
counselforaccusedFaizan,hehasdeposedthattheywereresidingin
rentedpremisesandthereweremanymoretenantsresidinginthe
samehouseandthewifeofthethirdtenanthadopenedthedoorfor
therespondents.

“Atthetimeofincident,wewereresidingonrentat
MangalBazaar,ChauhanPatti.Thereasoneroomset
onthefirstfloorofthehouseinourpossession.Three
otherfamilieswerealsoresidinginthesamehouseon
rent.ThesaidtenantswerelaganandRakeshbutIdo
notrememberthenameofthirdtenant.Laganand
Rakeshwerenotpresentatthetimeofincident.The
landlordofthehousewasnotresidinginthesaidhouse.
Whentheaccusedpersonscameatourhouse,Iwason
thegroundfloorintheroomofLaganandwastaking
heatfromfire.Theabovesaidpersonsdidnotenterin
theroomofLaganandtheywenttothefirstfloor
directly.Themaindoorofthehousewasknockedby
aforesaidaccusedpersonsandoneLadywhowaswife
ofthethirdtenantwhosenameIdonotremember,
openedthedoorasshewasunderimpressionthather

CRL.LP.404/2018Page15of23
husbandknockedatthedoor.Idonotknowifthe
policemadeinquiriesfromthesaidLadyornot.When
theaccusedpersonswenttothefirstfloorinourhouseI
wasnotpresentonthefirstfloor.ItiscorrectthatIwas
notpresentonthefirstfloorthatiswhy,Ididnotsee
whentheaccusedenteredinourhouse.Ididnotsee
theladywhowaswife”ofthirdtenant,openedthedoor
ofmaingatewhentheaccusedenteredinthehouse.It
iscorrectthatIdonotknowabouttheincidentonthe
firstfloor.(Vol.Whentheaccusedpersonsweretaking
awaymysisterIsawthemonstaircaseandIobjected
andtriedtosavemysisterthenaccusedgavetheknife
blowonmyneck.)”

23.Themostcrucialpartforconsiderationintheaforesaiddepositionis
that,hehasonlymentionedthenameofrespondentAsrafinhis
examinationinchiefandhasnotmentionedthenameoftheother
respondentsMohd.FaizanandMukeshMishra,whereasinhiscross-
examinationdated23.11.2016,hehasbeenconfrontedwithhisinitial
statementandhasdeposedthathehasnotgiventhenameoftheother
respondents,despitebeingwellacquaintedwiththem.Relevant
portionofhiscross-examinationdated23.11.2016readsasunder:-

“Ihavestudiedupto6standard.Iamdoingnothing
presently.IknowaccusedMukeshMishraashewas
residinginourlocalityalongwithhisfamilymembers.It
iscorrectthatIhadnotgiventhenameofMukesh
Mishrainmystatementmadetothepolicedespitethe
factthatIknewhimpriortothisincident”

24.Eventually,thenamesofboththerespondentsMukeshMishraand
Mohd.FaizanhaveappearedinthestatementofPramodMuni
(PW-8),whereinhehasalsodeposedthathissonRaviKumarwas
inflictedaknifeblowbyrespondentAshraf.Relevantportionfromhis

CRL.LP.404/2018Page16of23
examination-inchiefofPramodMuni(PW-8)recordedon23.11.2016
readsasunder:-

“Iamresidingattheaforesaidaddressforthelastabout
oneyear.On03.02.2009,itwasTuesday.Atabout
10.45pm,I,mywifeandmydaughter(victim)were
presentatmyhouse.MysonRaviwasalsopresent.One
tempoTATA407cameandstoppedinfrontofmyhouse.
Five/sixboyscameoutfromthesaidtempo.Theaccused
Ashrafpresentinthecourtwasamongthosefive/six
boys,whomIidentifiedashewasresidentofmylocality.
AccusedAshrafstartedtalkingtomewhereasother
personswerestandingwithhim.AccusedAshrafwas
askingaboutthewhereaboutsofmysonRaviandthe
victim.ThosepersonspushedmeasaresultIfelldown.
MysonRavicamefromhisroomandstarted
apprehendingAshraf.AccusedAsrafexhortedhis
associatesandaskedthemtohittheknifetomyson
Ravi.AccusedAshrafwashavingaknifeinhishand
andgaveknifeblowontheneckofRaviandthereafter
hegavetheknifetooneofhisotherassociateswhoalso
gaveknifeblowtoRavionhisneck.Bloodstartedoozing
out.ThosepersonsincludingaccusedAshraftookaway
thevictiminthesaidtempo.Two-threepersonsfromthe
nearbyhousesalsoreachedthere.Iandmywifeand
oneortwootherpersonsoftheareatookRavito
HinduraoHospitalwherehewasadmitted.Imadea
calltothepolicestationKhajuriKhas.Someother
personalsomadeacallat100numberfromthespot.
PoliceofficialsreachedatHinduraoHospital.Ihad
narratedtheincidenttothepolice.Ihadgiventhe
namesofAshraf,FaizanandMukeshwhomIknew
priortothisincident.”

25.Therefore,whileanalyzingthetestimoniesoftheprosecution
witnessesitisdoubtfulastowhoinflictedknifeinjuryonPW-6Ravi
Kumar(brotheroftheprosecutrix).Theinjuredhimselfhasfailedto
namethepersonwhoinflictedinjuriesonhim.PW-8PramodMuni

CRL.LP.404/2018Page17of23
(stepfatheroftheprosecutrix)ontheotherhandnamedtwoaccused
whoinflictedknifeinjuriesonhisson,howeverMLCoftheinjured
Ex.PW.13/1negatedthetestimoniesofPW-8,astheMLCreveals
onlyoneinjuryonthebodyoftheinjuredRaviKumar.

26.Further,thestorysetupbytheprosecutionfailedtofindsupportfrom
themedicalexaminationoftheprosecutrixaswellastheFSLreport.
Dr.SanjeetaBehera,(PW-7)CMO,GynaeDepartment,GTB
Hospital,appearedonbehalfofDr.Sapnawhohadexaminedthe
victimon29.03.2009andprovedherreportasEx.PW7/AvideMLC
No.B-1288/09,whereinitwasopinedthattherewerenomarksonthe
body,thehymenwastornwitholdtearandfreshtearonleftsideand
asperthevaginalexaminationitwasopinedthattheuteruswasfound
6to8weeksizeandantevertedwithYTPaspositive.Further,theFSL
ReportNo.2009/B-3320wasconcludedwiththefindingthathuman
semenhadbeendetectedontheseizedexhibits,butthesamecould
notbematchedwiththesemenoftherespondent,asthesamplewas
putrefied.

27.Accordingly,fromthemedicalexaminationitisnotestablishedthatit
wastherespondent(Ashraf)whoisprimarilyresponsiblefor
committingrapeandpenetrativesexualassaultontheprosecutrix.
Thus,themedicalexaminationreportalsodoesnotlendanysupportto
evidenceoftheprosecutrixandthereisnootherevidenceavailableon
recordwhichsupportstheoffenceofrapehavingbeencommitted
uponher.

28.Inacaseofrape,theonusisalwaysontheprosecutiontoproveeach
ingredientoftheoffenceallegedagainsttheaccusedandsuchonus

CRL.LP.404/2018Page18of23
nevershiftsontheaccused.Thereisnodisputewiththeproposition
soughttobeurgedbycounselfortheStatethatthereisnobarinlaw
toconvicttheaccusedonthebasisofthesoletestimonyofthevictim,
however,theCourtmustbesatisfiedthatthetestimonyofthevictimis
ofsterlingqualityandinspiresconfidence.

29.Therefore,thetestimonyoftheprosecutrixhastobeconsistentinline
withthecaseoftheprosecution,asitcannotbealwayspresumedthat
thestatementoftheprosecutrixisalwaystrueandwithoutany
embellishment.Withregardtotheevidentiaryvalueofthemedical
evidencetheHon’bleApexinaveryrecentjudgementtitledasBalvir
SinghVsStateofMadhyaPradesh(Crl.A.1115/2010)decidedon
19.02.2019,hasspecifiedthatoralevidencealwayshassupremacy
overmedicalevidencebecausethesamecanbeonlyconsideredas
optionativeinnature.Relevantpartfromtheaforesaidjudgmentis
extractedbelow:

“26.Itiswellsettledthattheoralevidencehastoget
primacysincemedicalevidenceisbasicallyopinionative.
SectionInRamanandYadavv.PrabhuNathJhaandothers
(2003)12SCC606,theSupremeCourtheldasunder:-

“17.Sofarastheallegedvariancebetweenmedical
evidenceandocularevidenceisconcerned,itistrite
lawthatoralevidencehastogetprimacyandmedical
evidenceisbasicallyopinionative.Itisonlywhenthe
medicalevidencespecificallyrulesouttheinjuryasis
claimedtohavebeeninflictedaspertheoral
testimony,thenonlyinagivencasethecourthasto
drawadverseinference.”

ThesameprinciplewasreiteratedinSectionStateofU.P.v.
KrishnaGopalandanother(1988)4SCC302,wherethe
SupremeCourtheld”thateyewitnesses’accountwould
requireacarefulindependentassessmentandevaluation

CRL.LP.404/2018Page19of23
fortheircredibilitywhichshouldnotbeadversely
prejudgedmakinganyotherevidence,includingmedical
evidence,asthesoletouchstoneforthetestofsuch
credibility.”

30.RetractingthesameversiontheHon’bleApexcourtinthecaseof
SectionYogeshSinghvs.MahabeerSinghandothersreportedinAIR2016
SC5160,hasheldthatthemedicalevidenceisonlycorroborativein
natureandnotconclusive.ThegermaneportionofYogeshSingh
(Supra)isextractedbelow:

“Inanyevent,ithasbeenconsistentlyheldbythisCourt
thattheevidentiaryvalueofmedicalevidenceisonly
corroborativeandnotconclusiveand,hence,incaseof
aconflictbetweenoralevidenceandmedicalevidence,
theformeristobepreferredunlessthemedicalevidence
completelyrulesouttheoralevidence.[SeeSolanki
ChimanbhaiUkabhaiVs.StateofGujarat,(1983)2SCC
174;ManiRamVs.StateofRajasthan,1993Supp(3)
SCC18;StateofU.P.Vs.KrishnaGopalAnr.,Stateof
HaryanaVs.Bhagirath,(1999)5SCC96;Dhirajbhai
GorakhbhaiNayakVs.StateofGujarat,(2003)5SCC
223;ThamanKumarVs.StateofU.T.ofChandigarh,
(2003)6SCC380;KrishnanVs.State,(2003)7SCC56;
KhambamRajaReddyAnr.Vs.PublicProsecutor,
HighCourtofA.P.,(2006)11SCC239;StateofU.P.Vs.
Dinesh,(2009)11SCC566;StateofU.P.Vs.Hari
Chand,(2009)13SCC542;AbdulSayeedVs.Stateof
M.P.,(2010)[email protected]
SinghOrs.Vs.State,2011)7SCC421].

31.Inthepresentcase,onacumulativereadingandappreciationofthe
entireevidenceonrecord,weareoftheconsideredviewthatthe
evidenceoftheprosecutionwitnessareunworthyofacceptance.There
beingconsiderableinconsistenciesanddiscrepanciesinthestatement
ofthevictim,whichmakesthecasefabricatedandunreliable.Asthe

CRL.LP.404/2018Page20of23
entireversionregardingtherecoveryofthevictimcomesundera
shadowofdoubtbecauseofthemajorimprovementsmadebythe
victimandthesamedoesnotfindcorroborationwiththetestimonyof
theinvestigatingofficer.Accordinglythecontentionoflearned
Prosecutorforthestate,thattherespondentbeconvictedinthepresent
caseashehasbeenalreadyconvictedinaseparateFIRNo.276/2008,
doesnotholdgroundasboththeincidentsareseparateinnaturewith
differentcircumstancesandsituations.Therefore,theprosecutionhas
failedtodisclosethetruegenesisofthecrimeandestablishthe
chargesagainsttherespondent’spersonsfortheoffencepunishable
underSections307/Section344/Section365/Section366/Section376/Section34ofIPC.

32.ItisasettledlawthattheAppellateCourtmayonlyinterfereinan
appealagainstacquittalwhentherearesubstantialandcompelling
reasonstodoso.InMuralidharandOrs.VersusStateofKarnataka
reportedat(2014)5SCC730,ithasbeenheldthat:

12.Theapproachoftheappellatecourtintheappeal
againstacquittalhasbeendealtwithbythisCourtin
SectionTulsiramKanuv.State:AIR1954SC1,SectionMadanMohan
Singhv.StateofU.P.:AIR1954SC637,SectionAtleyv.State
ofU.P.:AIR1955SC807,SectionAherRajaKhimav.Stateof
Saurashtra:AIR1956SC217,SectionBalbirSinghv.Stateof
Punjab:AIR1957SC216,SectionM.G.Agarwalv.Stateof
Maharashtra:AIR1963SC200,SectionNoorKhanv.Stateof
Rajasthan:AIR1964SC286,SectionKheduMohtonv.State
ofBihar:(1970)2SCC450,SectionShivajiSahabraoBobadev.
StateofMaharashtra:(1973)2SCC793,SectionLekhaYadav
v.StateofBihar(1973)2SCC424,SectionKhemKaranv.
StateofU.P.:(1974)4SCC603],SectionBishanSinghv.State
ofPunjab:(1974)3SCC288],SectionUmedbhaiJadavbhaiv.
StateofGujarat:(1978)1SCC228,K.GopalReddyv.

StateofA.P.:(1979)1SCC355,SectionTotaSinghv.Stateof
Punjab:(1987)2SCC529,RamKumarv.Stateof

CRL.LP.404/2018Page21of23
Haryana:1995Supp(1)SCC248,SectionMadanLalv.Stateof
JandK:(1997)7SCC677,SectionSambasivanv.Stateof
Kerala:(1998)5SCC412,SectionBhagwanSinghv.Stateof
M.P.:(2002)4SCC85,SectionHarijanaThirupalav.Public
Prosecutor,HighCourtofA.P.:(2002)6SCC470,SectionC.
Antonyv.K.G.RaghavanNair:(2003)1SCC1,SectionStateof
Karnatakav.K.Gopalakrishna:(2005)9SCC291,SectionState
ofGoav.SanjayThakran:(2007)3SCC755and
SectionChandrappav.StateofKarnataka:(2007)4SCC415.It
isnotnecessarytodealwiththesecasesindividually.
SufficeittosaythatthisCourthasconsistentlyheldthat
indealingwithappealsagainstacquittal,theappellate
courtmustbearinmindthefollowing:(i)Thereis
presumptionofinnocenceinfavourofanaccusedperson
andsuchpresumptionisstrengthenedbytheorderof
acquittalpassedinhisfavourbythetrialcourt,(ii)The
accusedpersonisentitledtothebenefitofreasonable
doubtwhenitdealswiththemeritoftheappealagainst
acquittal,(iii)Though,thepoweroftheappellatecourtin
consideringtheappealsagainstacquittalareasextensive
asitspowersinappealsagainstconvictionsbutthe
appellatecourtisgenerallyloathindisturbingthefinding
offactrecordedbythetrialcourt.Itissobecausethetrial
courthadanadvantageofseeingthedemeanorofthe
witnesses.Ifthetrialcourttakesareasonableviewofthe
factsofthecase,interferencebytheappellatecourtwith
thejudgmentofacquittalisnotjustified.Unless,the
conclusionsreachedbythetrialcourtarepalpablywrong
orbasedonerroneousviewofthelaworifsuch
conclusionsareallowedtostand,theyarelikelytoresult
ingraveinjustice,thereluctanceonthepartofthe
appellatecourtininterferingwithsuchconclusionsis
fullyjustified,and(iv)Merelybecausetheappellatecourt
onre-appreciationandre-evaluationoftheevidenceis
inclinedtotakeadifferentview,interferencewiththe
judgmentofacquittalisnotjustifiediftheviewtakenby
thetrialcourtisapossibleview.Theevenlybalanced
viewsoftheevidencemustnotresultintheinterferenceby
theappellatecourtinthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.

CRL.LP.404/2018Page22of23

33.Keepinginviewtheaforesaidpropositions,weseenocompellingand
substantialreasontointerferewithanorderofacquittalpassedbythe
learnedTrialCourtinthepresentcaseandtherefore,uponoverall
analysis,weareoftheviewthatthepresentleavepetitionpreferredby
theStatebeingmeritlessdeservestobedismissed.

34.Accordingly,thepresentleavepetitionbeingdevoidofmeritis
dismissed.

35.TrialCourtRecordbesentback.

36.CopyofthisorderbesenttotheJailSuperintendent/TiharJailfor
information.

SANGITADHINGRASEHGAL,J

SIDDHARTHMRIDUL,J

APRIL22,2019
gr//

CRL.LP.404/2018Page23of23

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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