HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 228 / 2016

State of Rajasthan

—-Appellant

Versus

Mukhram S/o Ramlal, By caste Jat, Resident of Khoda, P.S.
Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

—-Respondent

__

For Appellant : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor

For Respondent : Mr. Girish Sankhla

__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
26/04/2017

This leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant-State

while challenging the judgment dated 11.04.2016 passed by the

Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as

‘the trial court’) in Original Criminal Case No.86/2012, whereby

the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the

offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1989’).

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a typed report

(Exhibit-P/1) filed by PW-1, the police registered the FIR
(2 of 8)
[CRLLA-228/2016]

No.356/2008 on 04.10.2008 at Police Station Rawatsar, District

Hanumangarh against the accused respondent for the offences

punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(XII) of the Act

of 1989. In the typed report (Exhibit-P/1), it is alleged that on

02.10.2008 at about 01:30 PM, when she was working in the

agriculture field of the accused respondent, which they were

cultivating on share basis, the accused respondent came there and

caught hold of her and despite her resistance has not released her

and forcibly broken her bloomers drawstring and committed rape

upon her. It is further alleged that when she raised cries, her

husband, her nephew, her daughter immediately reached there

then the accused respondent offered them four and five hundred

rupees and asked them that don’t raise your voice. It is also

alleged that the accused respondent abused them with casteist

remarks and threatened them to kill them. It is further alleged

that thereafter the accused respondent called two and three

persons, who along with accused respondent, harassed and

threatened them to disposes from agriculture field. It is also

alleged that in the said scuffle, the accused respondent snatched

her golden earring.

The police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the

accused respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376

and 382 IPC and Section 3(1)(XII) of the Act of 1989 but the trial

court charged him for the offences punishable under Section 376

IPC and Section 3(1)(XII) of the Act of 1989.

To prove the case, the prosecution produced as many as

eleven witnesses and also got examined several documents. The
(3 of 8)
[CRLLA-228/2016]

statement of accused respondent was recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. and four witnesses had been produced in defence.

The trial court, after pondering over the evidence produced

by the prosecution as well as the defence and after hearing

counsel for the parties, acquitted the accused respondent for the

offences for which he was charged, vide impugned judgment.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State has submitted that from the statements of PW-1

prosecutrix, her husband PW-2 Hanuman, her brother-in-law PW-4

Indraj and her nephew PW-5 Bhalaram, it is clear that on

02.10.2008 at about 01:30 PM, when the complainant PW-1

prosecutrix was working in the agriculture field of the accused

respondent, he came there and sexually assaulted her. It is

contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR, in the police

statements and the in the statements recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C. had been verified by PW-1 in her court’s statements and

the other witnesses had also been corroborated the evidence of

the prosecutrix. It is contended that the trial court without

appreciating the said evidence in right perspective illegally

acquitted the accused respondent for the offences for which he

was charged.

It is also contended that the trial court has taken into

consideration the fact that the matter has been compromised

between the parties, therefore, the accused respondent cannot be

held guilty of sexually assaulting the prosecutrix. It is contended

that the factum of compromise cannot be a ground for acquitting
(4 of 8)
[CRLLA-228/2016]

the accused respondent, when the prosecution has proved the

charges beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused

respondent.

Learned Pubic Prosecutor has, therefore, prayed that it is a

fit case for grating leave to file appeal against the impugned

judgment.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused

respondent has vehemently argued that the trial court has not

committed any illegality in acquitting the accused vide its

judgment impugned, as the prosecution has failed to prove the

charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

It is also argued that there is serious contradiction in the

statements of prosecution witnesses, which creates serious doubts

about the prosecution story. It is further argued that as a matter

of fact PW-1 prosecutrix, her husband PW-2 and her other family

members were cultivating the land of accused respondent on

share basis, however, on account of payment of some money,

dispute arose between them and for that purpose Panchayat was

also called but later on when the matter was not resolved in

Panchayat then this false complaint of sexual assault filed against

the accused respondent.

Learned counsel for the accused respondent has invited

attention of this Court towards the cross-examination of the

prosecution witnesses, who are the near relatives of PW-1

prosecutrix, wherein all of them have stated that they have not

seen the accused respondent committing rape upon prosecutrix
(5 of 8)
[CRLLA-228/2016]

and reached on spot after the act was over. It is also admitted by

them that some dispute was going on between the parties in

relation to payment of money. Learned counsel for the respondent

has also submitted that the independent witness viz. PW-3 Ram

Kumar has also not supported the prosecution story and stated in

his statement that the dispute between the family of the

prosecutrix and the accused respondent was in relation to some

payment of money and false complaint has been lodged against

the accused respondent alleging sexual assault. It is also

submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that at the time

of incident the accused respondent was around 59 years of age,

whereas the age of the prosecutrix was 29 years and looking to

this fact itself, it cannot be believed that the accused respondent

forcibly committed rape upon her. Learned counsel for the accused

respondent has, therefore, prayed that this leave to appeal

preferred on behalf of the appellant-State be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

scrutinized the record.

It is not in dispute that the complaint (Exhibit-P/1) was filed

by the prosecutrix PW-1 after a delay of two days.

After carefully going through the statements of PW-1, PW-2,

PW-4 and PW-5, this Court find several contradictions in their

evidence. The prosecution witnesses viz. PW-2 Hanuman, PW-4

Indraj and PW-5 Bhalaram have stated before the trial court that

when they reached on the spot they found that the accused

respondent was tying his drawstring of pajama and the
(6 of 8)
[CRLLA-228/2016]

prosecutrix was lying there. None of the above named prosecution

witnesses stated that they saw the accused respondent

committing rape upon prosecutrix.

PW-1 prosecutrix in her statement has stated that the

accused respondent had came in a jeep, however, she had not

seen the jeep and somebody else informed her that the accused

respondent had came in a jeep. She has also stated that she had

resisted the accused respondent, when he was committing rape

upon her and in that scuffle her bangles were broken and fell in

the agriculture field, however, in the naksha moka report,

prepared by the police, there is no mention regarding the broken

bangles and the same has not been recovered by the police. She

has also stated that after committing rape upon her, the accused

respondent ran away from there and her husband and other family

members caught him around 5 Bighas away from the place of

incident. She has also admitted that the accused respondent used

to visit agriculture field daily, however, prior to the said incident,

he never misbehaved with her.

PW-2 Hanuman in his statement has stated that when her

wife, PW-1 prosecutrix, raised cries then his nephew PW-5

Bhalaram reached there and at that time the accused respondent

was running from there, however, PW-5 Bhalaram, the nephew of

the PW-2 and PW-1, has stated that when they reached at the

spot the accused respondent was there and tying his drawstring of

pajama and the prosecutrix was lying in the field. PW-4 Indraj has

also stated the same facts.

(7 of 8)
[CRLLA-228/2016]

It is to be noticed that PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 are the

near relatives, whereas the PW-3 Ram Kumar and PW-6 Ramjilal

are the neighbors and both of them have not supported the

prosecution story and specifically stated that the dispute between

the family members of the prosecutrix and the accused

respondent was regarding money. They have also stated that they

did not heard about the alleged sexual assault upon the

prosecutrix by the accused respondent.

It is also to be noticed that the prosecution witnesses PW-1,

PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 in their statements have stated that just

after the incident, Banwari Lal also reached at the spot, to whom

the accused respondent stated that he has committed crime and

for which he is ready to pay any cost. However, Banwari Lal

appeared as DW-2, who has stated in his statement that on the

date of incident, Hanuman, Indraj and Bhalaram etc. were called

as the accused respondent was objecting for grazing their cattle in

his fields. He has also stated that none of the person present at

the site, has complained about the sexual assault by the accused

respondent upon the prosecutrix.

Similarly, the other defence witnesses viz. DW-1 Purnaram,

DW-3 Shishpal and DW-4 Rampratap have also stated that the

dispute between the family members of the prosecutrix and the

accused respondent was in respect of grazing of cattle.

At the time of incident the age of the accused respondent

was around 59 years, whereas the age of the prosecutrix was 29

years. This Court is of the opinion that the trial court has rightly
(8 of 8)
[CRLLA-228/2016]

held that it is unbelievable that an aged person committed sexual

assault upon the prosecutrix, who was quite young in her age, in

the presence of all her family members.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after

carefully scrutinizing the record, I am of the opinion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused

respondent beyond the reasonable doubt, therefore, the trial court

has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused

respondent vide impugned judgment.

Hence, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.

Accordingly, this leave to appeal is dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

Abhishek Kumar
S.No.32