SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State vs Naresh Kumar & Ors. on 29 May, 2019

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

CRL.A.479/2003

Reservedon:26.03.2019
DateofDecision:29.05.2019

INTHEMATTEROF:

STATE…..Appellant
Through:Ms.RadhikaKolluru,APPforState

versus
NARESHKUMARORS……Respondents
Through:Mr.HarishKhanna,Advocate

CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICESIDDHARTHMRIDUL
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEMANOJKUMAROHRI

MANOJKUMAROHRI,J.

1.Thepresentproceedinghasbeeninstitutedtochallengethe
acquittaloftherespondentsvidetheimpugnedjudgmentdated
25.02.2000inSessionsCaseNo.82/1995arisingoutofFIR
No.431/1990,P.S.PunjabiBagh.

2.Theleavetoappeal,inthepresentcase,wasgrantedvideorder
dated16.07.2003.

3.Thefactsoftheprosecution,asnotedbythetrialcourt,are:

“Thecaseoftheprosecution,asdisclosedfromthepolice
challan,isthaton3.11.1990complainantMangeRam

CRLA479/2003Page1of20
movedanapplicationtotheincharge,P.P.,Madipuron
whichsaidinchargepassedanorderforregistrationofthe
caseu/s.363/366SectionIPCandinvestigationofthecasewas
handedovertoASIRamDutt.Theapplicationwastothe
effectthatgoldweighing15tolasandcashofRs.10,000/-
werekeptinthehouseofthecomplainantandhisdaughter
wasmissingsince11.30P.M.ofthepreviousnightwhen
heandhiswifewereawaywiththeirelderdaughtertothe
hospitalandonreturntheyfoundthatyoungerdaughter
wasnotatthehousenorthegoldandcashwasatthe
houseandprayedforsearchofhisdaughterandhis
neighbourerNareshKumarr/o.WZ-868,VillageMadipur,
wassuspectedinthecommissionofthecrime.SaidASI
RamDuttapprehendedtheprosecutrixRachnaand
accusedNareshon4.11.90nearPetrolPump,Kapesehra
borderonthepointingoutofthecomplainantandgotthe
prosecutrixandNareshexaminedmedically.

4.Initially,thecasewasinvestigatedunderthesupervisionofSI
HarpalSingh,Incharge,PolicePost,Madipur.On4.11.1990,astatement
oftheprosecutrixwasrecordedunderS.161SectionCr.P.C.Thereafter,ona
complaintfiledbythefatheroftheprosecutrixagainstSIHarpalSingh,
theinvestigationwastransferred.Duringtheinvestigationconducted
later,thestatementoftheprosecutrixunderSection164Cr.P.C.was
recordedon09.11.1990whichreadsas:-

“Ialongwithmyparents,threebrothersandasister
liveatWZ-566,Madipur,Delhi.On3.11.90,myparents
hadtakenmysistertoGangaRamHospitalfortreatment.
Intheeveningof3.11.90,Ialongwithmymummy,papa
andbrotherhadtakenmysisterKavitatonearbyDr.
Tyagi,whereoneNaresh,whowasourneighbourwas
alreadythere.Dr.TyagihadadvisedfortakingKavitato
thehospital.Mymotheradvisedmetostayathome
whereasshewithmyfatherandbrothertookmysisterto
GangaRamHospital.IwaswatchingT.V.atabout10.30
p.m.whentherewasacallbell.Iopenedthedoorand
foundNareshstanding.Hetoldmethattherewasa

CRLA479/2003Page2of20
telephonecallfrommyfather,whohaddesiredmeto
accompanyhimtohospitalalongwithtotalofcashlying
insidethealmirah.IopenedthealmirahandNareshalso
camenearme.Igavetotalofthecash,whichwasinthe
denominationofRs.50/-andRs.100/-toNaresh.Ididnot
countthemoney.Thereafter,Nareshpickedupsomeitems
ofjewellery,whichwaslyinginthebox,whichinthefront
inthealmirah.Onmyasking,hesaidthatitmayalsobe
requiredastheremaybesomeemergency.Ibelievedhim.
Igotpanickyonhearingalsothatmyfatherhaddesired
moneyandmealso.Iwasalsoworriedaboutconditionof
mysister.Igotperplexed.Iaccompanied.Outsideour
gatetherewasawhiteMaruticarstanding,whereinJai
Parkashwasfoundsittingatthedriverseat.IknewJai
Prakashashewasourneighbour.Webothsatontheback
seatofMaruticaraswasplannedbyNaresh.Thecarwas
drivenforquitesometimeandthenIaskedaboutthe
hospital.Onmyrepeatedlyasking,Iwasthreatenedby
NareshandJaiPrakashtobekilledifImadeanoiseor
didnotaccompanythemquietly.Igotfrightened.They
tookmetoaplace,whereitwasquitedark.Iwastaken
insidetheroombyNaresh,whichwaslockedfromoutside
byJaiPrakash.Ididnotknowastowhatplaceitwas.We
reachedthereatabout12:30night.(Nowatthisstage,
shesaysthatwhenshewasaskingaboutthehospitalwhile
inthecase,hermouth,feetandhandsweretiedbythe
clothbyJaiPrakashandNaresh).Intheroom,Iwasmade
tolieonjutebory,whichwasalreadylyingthere.Naresh,
whohadalreadybeendrinkingwhileinthecarwasdrunk.
Heputoffmysalwarkameez,underwearandbra.Before
puttingoffmyclothes,hethreatenedmethatIshallbe
killedifIresisted.IwasweepingbutIcouldnotresistasI
wasfrightened.Then,heforciblyagainstmywishesdid
badworkwithmewhilecomingovermybody.(Bythebad
work,shemeanssexwhichshehasexplainedas
intercourse).Herepeatedthesexwithmeaftersometime
inthesamenight.Nextdaynight,heagaindidsexwithme
forciblyandagainstmyconsent.Nextday,thepolicecame
thereandbybreakingopenthelockfromoutsidearrested
us.IdidnotaccompanyNareshofmyownbutunderan
inducementandlaterunderthreatandpressure.Inever

CRLA479/2003Page3of20
consentedtosexwithhem,whichhedidforciblyand
withoutmyconsent.”

5.Later,theinvestigationweretransferredtothespecialstaffof
TagoreGarden,WestDistrict,where,on23.11.1990,anotherstatement
ofprosecutrixunderSectionS.161Cr.P.C.wasrecordedbySIChanderBhanto
thefollowingeffect:-

“Thatshewasresidingalongwithherparentsandwasa
studentof8thclassofGovt.GirlsSr.SecondarySchool,
PunjabiBaghandherdateofbirthis8.2.75Shehadthree
brothersandonesister.On2.11.90whentheparentshad
takenhereldersisterKavitaat8.30-9.00P.M.toGanga
RamHospitalshewasathouseandaftersometimeNaresh
s/o.ofhisuncle/Taurangbellofhishouseandsheopened
thedoorandNareshinformedthattherewasatelephonic
callofherfatherwhohascalledformoneyatthehospital.
ShethenwentinsidethehousetobringmoneyandNaresh
alsofollowedherandwhensheopenedthealmirah
Nareshwasstandingnearherandshecollectedtheentire
moneywhichwasintheformofcurrencynotesofRs.100/-
Rs.50/-andhandedovertoNareshwhoalsoopenedthe
boxkeptinthealmirahandfindingornamentsthereinhe
alsopickedupthatboxandbothofthemcameoutofthe
houseandshefoundamaruticarstandingthereinwhich
JaiParkashwassitting.Nareshhandedovercashand
jewelleryboxtoJaiParkashaccused.Itwasabout10.30
P.M.atthattimeandsheNareshsatontherearseatof
thecarwhereasJaiParkashstartedthecarandafter
sometimesheenquiredforthehospital,whereuponshe
wasthreatenedbythemandwhenshewantedtoraise
alarmtheytiedhermouthandthehandsandshecouldnot
raisethenoise.Theytookhertosomelonelyplaceina
roomandJaiParkashleftallthecashandjewellerybox
andNareshconfinedherintheroomandbolteditfrom
inside.Therewasanemptygunnybaglyingintheroom.
Nareshwasundertheinfluenceofliquorandheremoved
herclothesbyforceandalsothreatenedherthatifshe
resistedshewouldbekilled.Shewasweepingand

CRLA479/2003Page4of20
extremelyfrightenedandNareshcommittedrapeonher
manytimesnight.

Itisfurtherinherstatementthaton4.11.90atabout
8.30P.M.JaiParkashknockedthedoorwhichwasopened
byNareshandJaiParkashtoldtoNareshtoleaveherat
theplacefromwhereshewasbroughtotherwisehewould
beentangledinsomecaseandNareshtookheratthe
DhabanearPetrolPumpandwhiletheywerethereher
fathercamethereinhiscarandpolicetookthemtothe
P.P.”

6.Aftertheinvestigation,thechallanwasfiledintheconcerned
Courtandthechargeswereframedagainsttherespondentson
16.07.1992.TherespondentNo.1/NareshKumarwaschargedunder
Section420andSection376IPC.Hewasalsochargedalongwithrespondent
no.2/JaiParkashunderSection366r/wS.34SectionIPC.

7.Duringthetrial,theprosecutionexamined18witnesses.Besides
theprosecutrix,theprosecutionalsoexaminedMangeRam(PW-5),the
fatheroftheprosecutrixandSantoshYadav(PW-7),themotherofthe
prosecutrix.Additionally,theprosecutionalsoreliedonthetestimonies
ofVijaySingh(PW-8),whohadlastseentheprosecutrixinthecompany
oftherespondentsandKirpaRam(PW-10)tocorroboratethetestimony
ofVijaySingh.However,duringthetrial,VijaySinghdidnotsupport
thecaseoftheprosecutionandthetestimonyofKirpaRamwasofno
use,beinghearsay.

8.Ms.RadhikaKolluru,learnedAPPfortheStatecontendedthatthe
impugnedjudgmentisperverseandisprimarilybasedonthe
inconsequentialcontradictionsinthestatementoftheprosecutrix,made
beforethePoliceandtheCourt.Accordingtoher,thetestimonyofthe
prosecutrixiswhollyreliableandtrustworthy.

CRLA479/2003Page5of20

9.Mr.HarishKhanna,thelearnedcounselfortherespondentsonthe
otherhand,contendedthatthetestimonyofprosecutrix(PW-1)was
whollyunreliable,beingcontrarytoherearlierstatementrecordedon
04.11.1990.Itwascontendedthatinheraboveearlierstatement,shehad
statedthaton03.11.1990atabout6:30pm.,shehadgonewithNaresh
KumartoPataudi,Gurgaon,onherownvolition.

Analysis:

10.Thelaw,sofarasthescopeofinterferenceinanappealagainstan
orderoftheacquittaliswelldefined.Referenceinthisregardismadeto
thedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinSectionGhureyLalV.StateofU.P.,
reportedas(2008)10SCC450,whereinitwasheld:-

“70.Inlightoftheabove,theHighCourtandother
appellatecourtsshouldfollowthewell-settledprinciples
crystallisedbynumberofjudgmentsifitisgoingtooverrule
orotherwisedisturbthetrialcourt’sacquittal:

1.Theappellatecourtmayonlyoverruleorotherwise
disturbthetrialcourt’sacquittalifithas”verysubstantial
andcompellingreasons”fordoingso.

Anumberofinstancesariseinwhichtheappellatecourt
wouldhave”verysubstantialandcompellingreasons”to
discardthetrialcourt’sdecision.”Verysubstantialand
compellingreasons”existwhen:

(i)Thetrialcourt’sconclusionwithregardtothefacts
ispalpablywrong;

(ii)Thetrialcourt’sdecisionwasbasedonan
erroneousviewoflaw;

(iii)Thetrialcourt’sjudgmentislikelytoresultin
“gravemiscarriageofjustice”;

(iv)Theentireapproachofthetrialcourtindealing
withtheevidencewaspatentlyillegal;

CRLA479/2003Page6of20

(v)Thetrialcourt’sjudgmentwasmanifestlyunjust
andunreasonable;

(vi)Thetrialcourthasignoredtheevidenceor
misreadthematerialevidenceorhasignoredmaterial
documentslikedyingdeclarations/reportofthe
ballisticexpert,etc.

(vii)Thislistisintendedtobeillustrative,not
exhaustive.

2.Theappellatecourtmustalwaysgiveproperweightand
considerationtothefindingsofthetrialcourt.

3.Iftworeasonableviewscanbereached–onethatleadsto
acquittal,theothertoconviction–theHighCourts/appellate
courtsmustruleinfavouroftheaccused.”

11.Itisthusclearthatanorderofacquittalpassedbythetrialcourt
canbeinterferedonlyiftheimpugnedjudgmentisfoundtobeperverse,
illegalandifthereareverysubstantialandcompellingreasons.

AGEOFTHEPROSECUTRIX

12.Theprosecutrix,duringherdepositioninCourt,statedherdateof
birthas23.03.1975.Duringthecross-examination,shedeniedthe
suggestionthatonthedayoftheincidentshewasabove18years.Both,
MangeRamandSantoshYadav,duringtheirdepositionstatedthatthe
prosecutrixwasbornon23.03.1975andatthetimeoftheincident,she
wasastudentof8thstandard.Duringtheircross-examination,no
suggestionwasgivendisputingtheabovefact.Theprosecutionhadalso
examinedNareshKumar,Sub-Registrar,BirthandDeath,MCD,asPW
13,whostatedthatintheoriginalregisterofBirthandDeath,duly
maintainedintheofficeoftheMCD,entryatSl.No.168waswith
respecttothebirthoftheprosecutrixon23.03.1975,showingthename

CRLA479/2003Page7of20
oftheprosecutrixaswellasherfatherandmother.Thewitnesswasnot
crossexaminedbytherespondents.It,thusstoodprovedthatthe
prosecutrixwasaminor,beinglessthan16years,onthedateofthe
incident.

CREDIBILITYOFTHEPROSECUTRIX

13.Thelearnedcounselfortherespondentsdoubtedthecredibilityof
theprosecutrixbyheavilyrelyingonherstatementdated04.11.1990.It
wascontendedthathersubsequentstatements,recordedduringthe
investigationaswellasthetrial,werecontradictorytoherfirststatement.

14.Thelearnedcounselfortherespondentsarguedthatasperher
statementdated04.11.1990,theprosecutrixstatedtohavegonewiththe
respondentson03.11.1990,ofherownvolition.Hefurthercontended
thatasperthesaidstatement,theprosecutrixwentwithNareshKumar,
onatwo-wheelerscooterbearingNo.DAF2156toPataudiand
thereafter,camebackon04.11.1990withNareshKumarandhisbrother-
in-law.Thetwo,afterreachingneartheborderofDelhi,handedoverthe
prosecutrixtothepolice.

15.Learnedcounselfortherespondentsalsoarguedthattherewere
materialcontradictionsinthestatementoftheprosecutrixrecordedunder
Section164Cr.P.C.aswellasherdepositionmadebeforetheCourt.In
thestatementrecordedunderSection164Cr.P.C.,theprosecutrixstated
thatthepolicecameatherplaceofconfinementandarrestedthe
respondentsafterbreakingopenthelockfromoutside.Ontheother
hand,inthedepositionbeforetheCourt,shegaveadifferentversionand
ratherstatedthattheycameinthecartoadhabanearpetrolpump,where

CRLA479/2003Page8of20
policehadreachedalongwithherfatherandthereafter,theywere
broughttoP.P.Madipur.

16.Learnedcounselfortherespondentsarguedthattheabovetwo
statementswerecontradictoryandirreconcilable.Healsodrewthe
attentionofthiscourttoparagraphnos.30,31and32oftheimpugned
judgment,wherediscrepanciesandcontradictionswereheldtobefatal.
Forthesakeoffelicity,theparagraphnos.30to32oftheimpugned
judgment,arereproducedbelow:-

“30.Ithasbeenpointedoutandvehementlyarguedthatin
theinstantcasestatementoftheprosecutrixiscontradictory
andtherearenoindependentpublicwitnesses,thoughitwas
possiblefortheprosecutiontoprocureandproducesuch
witnessesandthattheinvestigationhasnotbeenconducted
fairlyandimpartiallysoastobringhomethecharge.Itis
furthercontendedthatthestoryputforthbytheprosecutrix
Rachnahasnotbeensupportedbyanyindependentwitness
thoughshestatedthatwhileshewasleavingthehousealong
withaccusedNareshshewassoonboardingthecarbyone
VijayBhaiSahib.NodoubtsaidVijayPWhasbeenexamined
bytheprosecutionasPW8buthetotallydeniedhavingseen
theprosecutrixgoingwiththeaccusedandinthisregard
anotherwitnessPWKirpaRamstatedhavingbeeninformed
bysaidVijaySinghthatthedaughterofMangeRamhadbeen
kidnappedisofnouseasthesameisinthenatureofhearsay.
Mostimportantaspectinthestatementoftheprosecutrix
however,appearstoberegardingthefactumofherrecovery
fromthepossessionofaccusedpersons.

31.InherstatementasPW1Rachnaprosecutrixwas
confrontedwithherearlierstatementunderSec.164SectionCr.P.C.
whereinshestatedbeforethelearnedM.M.thatshewas
recoveredfromlonelyhousebybreakingopenthelockfrom
outsideandthenshewasarrested.Ifthiswasthestateofaffair
thatshewasrecoveredfromalonelyhousewherethecrimeof

CRLA479/2003Page9of20
rapewascommittedbybreakingopenthelockoftheroom,she
wouldhavestatedtoinherstatementintheCourtalso.She,
however,inthisregardputupentirelyadifferentnewstory
thatshewastakenfromthatlonelyplacetotheDhabanear
petrolpumpfromwherepolicepartyandherfatherrecovered
her.Thesetwostatementsarenotreconcilable.Itthus,appears
thattheversionoftheprosecutrixisself-contradictoryandthis
castsaquestionmarkontheveracityandacceptabilityofthe
storyasputforthbythiswitness.Moreover,theprosecutrix
hasfailedtoproduceanyeyewitnessregardingfactumof
recoveryofRachnafromtheDhabaasalleged.Itisnobody’s
casethatnopublicwitnesswasavailableatthesaidDhabaat
thetimeofrecoveryofthegirlandthereisnoexplanationfor
notjoininganypublicwitnessatthattime.

32.Asregardsthefactumoftheprosecutrixbeingtaken
fromherhouse,thecomplainantPW5MangeRamhadstated
inhisstatementthattenantJagdishhadinformedhimthathe
hadseenthegirlbeingtakenonthepreviousnightatabout
11.00p.m.whilestatingthatshewasgoingtohospital.Ifin
factthispersonhadseenthegirl,whileleavingthehouse,he
wouldhavealsoseentheaccusedpersonsalongwithherand
couldeasilydeposeaboutthisfactinthiscourtbutforthe
reasonsbestknowntotheprosecutionthispersonwasnever
citedasawitnesswhocouldverywellsupporttheprosecution
caseandfurthernoreasonwhatsoeverhasbeengivenbythe
complainantMangeRamastowhythiswitnesswasnotcited
asawitness.Thistantamountstosuppressionofmaterial
witness.Allthewitnessesproducedarepoliceofficialsandno
publicwitnesswhocouldsupportthecaseoftheprosecution,
hasbeencitedexceptthetwonamelyVijayandKirpaRamwho
testimonyhasalreadybeendiscussedaboveisofnoavailtothe
prosecution.Whenthestatementoftheprosecutrixherselfis
self-contradictorythereisnoquestionofconvictionofthe
accusedpersonsfortheoffenceofrapeandkidnapping”.

17.Asnotedabove,thefirststatementoftheprosecutrixwasrecorded
on04.11.1990atP.P.Madipur,P.S.PunjabiBagh,whenthecasewas

CRLA479/2003Page10of20
investigatedunderthesupervisionofSIHarpalSinghwhowasthe
Incharge,PolicePostMadipur.Thesameisevidentfromthestatementof
ASIRamDutt(PW-18).Aperusalofthetrialcourtrecordrevealsthat
on06.11.1990,MangeRam,thefatheroftheprosecutrix,movedan
applicationbeforethecourt,againstSIHarpalSingh.Intheapplication,
itwasallegedthatSIHarpalSingh,wastryingtodestroytheevidenceas
hewasrelatedtorespondents.DuringthetestimonyofMangeRam,the
saidapplicationwasexhibitedasEx.PW-5/D.

18.InspectorMirSingh(PW-12)deposedthaton9.11.1990,hewas
postedatP.S.PunjabiBaghandtheinvestigationofthecasewas
withdrawnfromASIRamDuttandhandedovertohim.Thereafter,on
23.11.1990,theinvestigationofthecasewashandedovertoSIChander
Bhan(PW-15).

19.Fromabove,itisclearthatinitialinvestigationconductedatthe
behestofSIHarpalSinghwascloudedundersuspicion,whichforcedthe
fatheroftheprosecutrixtomoveanapplicationimmediatelyafterthe
statementoftheprosecutrixwasrecordedon04.11.1990.

20.Theprosecutrix,duringherdeposition,unequivocallystatedthat
shewasinducedtogowithNareshKumarashehadtoldherthather
fatherneededthemoneyandthejewelleryinthehospital,whereher
sisterwasundergoingtreatment.Shedeposedthatshewastakenin
MaruticarNo.DNH5247,whichwasdrivenbyJaiPrakash.Shealso
deposedthatinthecar,whensheaskedNareshKumaraboutthe
hospital,shewasthreatened.NareshKumartiedhermouthwitha
handkerchiefandherhandswithachunni.Shefurtherdeposedthat
NareshKumarhadconsumedliquorinthecarandtookhertoadeserted

CRLA479/2003Page11of20
built-uproomwhereshewasmadetositonagunnybaglyingthere.
WhileJaiPrakashwentoutafterboltingthedoorfromtheoutside,
NareshKumarremainedinsidetheroom.Aftersometime,JaiPrakash
camewiththebeddingandagainwentawayafterlockingthedoorofthe
roomfromoutside.Thereafter,NareshKumarremovedallherclothes
andcommittedrapeuponherwithoutherconsent.Shefurtherdeposed
thatonthenextday,i.e.,on03.11.1990,NareshKumar,again,
committedrapeonherduringthedayaswellasintheevening.Inthe
evening,JaiPrakashbroughtmealsandhandedoverthesametoNaresh
Kumar.Thereafter,hewent,afterlockingthedoorfromoutside.

21.On04.11.1990,JaiPrakashagaincameandtoldNareshKumar
thatthefatheroftheprosecutrixhadreportedthemattertothepoliceand
hisnamehadalsobeenmentionedintheFIR.Theprosecutrixalso
deposedthatJaiPrakashhadclaimedtobeknowntothechowkiin-
charge.Thereafter,theyhaddriventheprosecutrixinacarandbrought
hertoadhaba,whereshewasrecoveredbythepolice.

22.Duringhercross-examination,theprosecutrixconfrontedwith
variousportionsofherstatementdated4.11.1990(Ex.PW1/D1).Shewas
alsoconfrontedwithherstatementrecordedunderSection164Cr.P.C.,
whereshedeniedtohavestatedthatpolicehadrecoveredherfroma
lonelyhouseafterbreakingopenthelock.Sheclarifiedthatalthoughshe
hadstatedabouttheroleofJaiPrakashinherstatementon04.11.1990,
butthesamewasnotrecordedbythepolice.

23.Theprosecutrixwasmedicallyexaminedon04.11.1990atDeen
DayalUpadhyayaHospital.TheMLCoftheprosecutrixwasprovedby
Dr.D.K.Gupta(PW-11).TheMLCmentionedtheallegedhistoryof

CRLA479/2003Page12of20
sexualassault.TheprosecutionexaminedJ.C.Vashist(PW-16),the
recordclerk,DDUHospitaltoprovethehandwritingandsignatureofDr.
Aneetaaswellasherendorsement(Ex.PW16/A).Dr.Aneetawas
workingasaGynecologistandhadexaminedtheprosecutrix.Asperthe
MLC,superficialperinealtearwaspresent.Hymenwasfoundtorn,
posteriorly.AspertheCFSLReport(ExPX),humansemenwas
detectedonthetwomicroslides,preparedfromthevaginalsmearofthe
prosecutrix.

24.MangeRamdeposedthaton02.11.1990,hiselderdaughter(the
eldersisteroftheprosecutrix)wasnotwellandhehadtakenhiselder
daughterforacheckupintheclinicofDr.Tyagi,whereNareshKumar
wasalsopresent.OnbeingreferredbyDr.Tyagi,hisdaughterwas
admittedintheGangaRamHospitalonthesameday.MangeRam
deposedthatwhenhecamebacktohishouseinthemorningon
03.11.1990,theprosecutrixwasmissing.Hefoundthatthecashaswell
asthegoldornamentswerealsomissing.MangeRamsuspectedNaresh
Kumar,ashewaslivingintheneighborhoodandwasalsomissing.He
alsodeposedthaton04.11.1990,hehadgonewiththeinvestigation
officertovillageKapashera,whereNareshKumarandhisdaughterwere
recovered.ThetestimonyofSantosh,themotheroftheprosecutrix,is
cumulativetothetestimonyofMangeRam.Boththewitnesseswere
confrontedwiththeirearlierstatementswherethefactumofgoingtoDr.
Tyagi’sclinicandrefencetoGangaRamHospitalwerenotmentioned.

25.Tosupporthisargumentthatthetestimonyoftheprosecutrixwas
fullofmaterialcontradictions,hencenotcredible,thelearnedcounselfor
therespondentshasplacedrelianceonthedecisionsinAjitKumarVs.

CRLA479/2003Page13of20
Statereportedas1998[1]JCC36,AbbasAhmadChoudharyVs.State
ofAssamreportedasI(2010)SLT762,Naravan@NaranVs.Stateof
Rajasthanreportedas2007[2]JCC1202,StateVs.RadheyShyam
Mishrareportedas257(2019)DLT235andStateVs.VinayKumar
207(2014)DLT783.

26InAjitKumarVs.State(Supra)theaccusedwasacquittedasthe
testimonyoftheprosecutrixfailedtoinspireconfidence.Itwasobserved
thattherewerematerialcontradictionsnotonlywithrespecttotheperson
whoaccompaniedtheprosecutrixinthetrainjourneybutalsoquathe
placewheretheincidentofrapeoccurred.Atoneplace,itwasmentioned
asHapurandatotherplaceitwasmentionedthattheaccusedmether
outsideDelhiRailwaystation.Further,itwasalsoobservedthatthe
railwaychart,exhibitedonrecord,showedthatthetrainneverstoppedat
Hapur.InAbbasAhmadChoudhary(Supra)theaccusedwasacquitted
astheprosecutrixinherstatementdidnotattributeanyallegationofrape
ontheaccused.Theallegationsofrapeweremadeagainsttheco-accused
persons.InNaravan@Naran(Supra)theaccusedwasacquittedasthere
werematerialcontradictionsinthestatementoftheprosecutrixandalso
becausethematerialwitnesshadnotsupportedthecaseofthe
prosecution.InRadheyShyamMishra(Supra)thefactswerethatinher
firststatement,theprosecutrixdidnotnametheaccuseddespitethefact
thataccusedwasalreadyknowntoher.IntheFSLexamination,the
DNAoftheprosecutrixdidnotmatchwiththeDNAoftheaccused.In
VinayKumar(Supra)theprosecutrixdidnotmentionthenameofthe
accusedinthefirststatementandtheallegationofrapewaslevelledfor
thefirsttimewhiledeposinginthecourt.Asaresult,noneofthefact
situationsinabovedecisionswereakintothefactsinthepresentcase

CRLA479/2003Page14of20
andassuchthedecisionsinthecaptionedcasesareofnohelptothe
respondents.

27.Inthepresentcase,wedonotfindthecontradictionstobematerial
andfataltotheprosecutioncase.Onthecontrary,wefindthatthe
testimonyoftheprosecutrixwasconsistentquathefactumofrapeand
theMLCcorroborateshertestimony.Inthisregard,referenceismadeto
thedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinTheStateofHimachalPradeshVs.
MangaSingh2018SCCOnlineSC2886:

“11.Theconvictioncanbesustainedonthesole
testimonyoftheprosecutrix,ifitinspiresconfidence.The
convictioncanbebasedsolelyonthesolitaryevidenceof
theprosecutrixandnocorroborationberequiredunless
therearecompellingreasonswhichnecessitatethecourts
toinsistforcorroborationofherstatement.Corroboration
ofthetestimonyoftheprosecutrixisnotarequirementof
law;butaguidanceofprudenceunderthegivenfactsand
circumstances.Minorcontradictionsorsmall
discrepanciesshouldnotabeagroundforthrowingthe
evidenceoftheprosecutrix.

12.Itiswellsettledbyacatenaofdecisionsofthe
SupremeCourtthatcorroborationisnotasinequanonfor
convictioninarapecase.Iftheevidenceofthevictimdoes
notsufferfromanybasicinfirmityandthe’probabilities
factor’doesnotrenderitunworthyofcredence.Asa
generalrule,thereisnoreasonstoinsistoncorroboration
exceptfrommedicalevidence.However,havingregardto
thecircumstancesofthecase,medicalevidencemaynotbe
available.Insuchcases,solitarytestimonyofthe
prosecutrixwouldbesufficienttobasetheconviction,ifit
inspirestheconfidenceofthecourt.”

CRLA479/2003Page15of20

28.Inourview,thetestimonyofPW-1iscredibleandtrustworthy.
Eveninherfirststatementdated04.11.1990,shehadmentionedthat
NareshKumarhadcommittedrapeuponheragainstherwill.Her
subsequentstatements,recordedunderSection164andSection161Cr.P.C.,also
mentionedindetailtheincidenceofraperepeatedlycommittedby
NareshKumaronher.Duringthedeposition,ontheaspectofrape,the
testimonyoftheprosecutrixhasremainunshattered.Theinconsistencies
orcontradictions,aspointedoutbythelearnedcounselforthe
respondents,isimmaterialandinconsequential.Ithasbeenrepeatedly
heldthat”courtsshouldfindnodifficultytoactonthetestimonyofa
victimofasexualassaultalonetoconvictanaccusedwhereher
testimonyinspiresconfidenceandisfoundtobereliable”.[Ref:SectionStateof
Punjabv.GurmitSinghandOrsreportedas1996(2)SCC384andre-
affirmedinMangaSingh(supra)].

29.Thelearnedcounselfortherespondents,inreferencetotheMLC
ofNareshKumar,arguedthatnoinjurieswerefoundonthemaleorgan
ofNareshKumar.Accordingtohim,thiscircumstancepointstowards
thefalseimplicationoftherespondents.Inthisregard,reliancewas
placedonthethedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinSectionRahimBeg
Anothervs.StateofU.P.reportedas1972SCC(Crl.)827.Inthe
captionedcase,thehymenoftheprosecutrixwasnotfoundtorn,andas
such,theabovedecisionisofnohelptotherespondents.

30.Thelearnedcounselfortherespondentsalsoarguedthatinthe
chargeframedon16.11.1992,thedateoftheincidentwasreferredas
03.11.1990.Subsequently,aftertheinitialdepositionoftheprosecutrix
on03.02.1993,thechargewasillegallyamendedon12.03.1993,by

CRLA479/2003Page16of20
alteringthedateofincidentto02.11.1990.Hearguedthat,inherfirst
statement,theprosecutrixhadmentionedaboutgoingon03.11.1990.
However,inhersubsequentstatement,theallegeddateofgoingwiththe
respondentswaschangedto02.11.1990onlybecauseofthecircumstance
thattheFIRwaslodgedon02.11.1990.

31.Wehavealreadynoticedtheattendingcircumstancesinrelationto
therecordingofthestatementoftheprosecutrixon04.11.1990.Inallher
subsequentstatements,shehaddescribedtheperiodofherconfinement
spreadoveraperiodoftwonightsandthreedays.Inherstatement
recordedunder164SectionCr.P.C.,thoughshehadmentionedthedateas
03.11.1990,however,areadingofherstatementwouldshowthatthe
incidentwasspreadoveraperiodtwodays.Therelevantportionofthe
statementisreproducedbelow:-

“Intheroom,Iwasmadetolieonjutebory,which
wasalreadylyingthere.Naresh,whohadalreadybeen
drinkingwhileinthecarwasdrunk.Heputoffmysalwar
kameez,underwearandbra.Beforeputtingoffmyclothes,
hethreatenedmethatIshallbekilledifIresisted.Iwas
weepingbutIcouldnotresistasIwasfrightened.Then,he
forciblyagainstmywishesdidbadworkwithmewhile
comingovermybody.(Bythebadwork,shemeanssex
whichshehasexplainedasintercourse).Herepeatedthe
sexwithmeaftersometimeinthesamenight.Nextday
night,heagaindidsexwithmeforciblyandagainstmy
consent.Nextday,thepolicecamethereandbybreaking
openthelockfromoutsidearrestedus.Ididnot
accompanyNareshofmyownbutunderaninducement
andlaterunderthreatandpressure.Ineverconsentedto
sexwithhem,whichhedidforciblyandwithoutmy
consent.”

CRLA479/2003Page17of20

32.InherstatementrecordedunderSectionS.161Cr.P.C.on23.11.1990,she
statedthedateas02.11.1990.Eveninherdeposition,shementionedthe
dateofgoingwithNareshKumaras02.11.1990.Wemayalsoprofitably
reproducetheorderdated12.03.1993,whereinthelearnedcounselfor
therespondentsgavehisconsentforalteringthedateinthecharge:

“12.3.93
Present:BoththeaccusedonbailwithcounselSh.S.P.

Yadav,Advocate
APPfortheState
Onthelasthearing,anapplicationwasmadebyld.
APPrequestingforamendingthechargeregardingthe
dateoftheinstitution.Itwasassertedbyhimthatinstead
of02.11.1990thedatehasbeenshownas3.11.90and
similarlyregardingtheinterveningnight,thedateshown
as3.11.90and4.11.90standsfor2.11.90and3.11.90.The
ld.DefencecounselSh.Yadavsaysthathehasno
objectionincasethechargeisamendedinregardtothe
dateoftheinstitution.Insteadofframinganewcharge,
theoriginalchargeitselfiscorrectedsincethecorrection
isneededonlyregardingthedateofincident.Charge
correctedaccordingly.”

Conclusion:

33.Thetrialcourt,whilepassingtheimpugnedjudgment,primarily
tookintoaccountthecontradictionsinthestatementsoftheprosecutrix
withrespecttothefactumofherrecoveryfromthepossessionofthe
accusedperson;absenceofanypublicwitnessatthetimeofherrecovery
andthenon-examinationofoneJagdish,atenant,whohadinformed
MangeRamabouttheprosecutrixleavingthehouseonthenightof
02.11.1990.Wearenotinconformitywiththejudgmentpassedbythe

CRLA479/2003Page18of20
trialcourt.Thejudgmentpassedbythetrialcourtismanifestlyunjust
andunreasonableasithadbaseditsconclusiononimmaterial
contradictionsinthestatementsoftheprosecutrix.Asheldabove,onthe
dateofincident,theprosecutrixwasaminor,beinglessthan16yearsof
age.Theprosecutrix,inallofherstatements,wasconsistentwithrespect
tothefactumofrapecommitteduponherbyNareshKumar.Her
testimonyisbothcredibleandtrustworthyaswellascorroboratedbythe
medicalevidenceintheformofherMLC.Insofaras,theroleofJai
Prakashisconcerned,shehaddeposedthatduringtheperiodofher
confinementintheroomheusedtocomeintermittentlywiththemeals
andwhilegoingout,usedtolocktheroomfromoutside.Shehas
consistentlystatedabouttheroleofbothNareshKumarandJaiPrakash
inkidnappingher.

34.Wedo,however,agreewiththetrialcourtonlytotheextentthat
theprosecutionfailedtobringanyevidenceonrecordsofarasthe
chargeunderSection420IPCwasconcerned.Consequently,theappeal
filedbytheStateisallowedtotheextentthattherespondent
No.1/NareshKumarisheldguiltyandconvictedforanoffenceunder
Section376IPCforwhichheisdirectedtoundergoasentenceof10
yearswithfineofRs.10,000/-andindefault,toundergoSIfor6months.
BoththerespondentsarealsoheldguiltyandconvictedunderSection
366r/w34SectionIPCforwhichtheyaredirectedtoundergoasentenceof7
yearswithfineofRs.5,000/-andindefault,toundergoSIfor1month.
BoththeconvictswillgetthebenefitofSectionS.428Cr.P.C.Thesentences
awardedtorespondentno.1/NareshKumararedirectedtorun
concurrently.Thebailbondsofboththerespondentsarecancelled.Both

CRLA479/2003Page19of20
therespondentsaredirectedtosurrenderbeforetheconcernedcourt
withinoneweekfromthedateofpassingofthejudgment.

35.Wenotethat,despiterepeatedcautionsbytheSupremeCourtand
incompleteignoranceofSectionS.228AIPCandS.327(2)(3)SectionCr.P.C.,the
trialcourtjudgmentisrepletewiththenameoftheprosecutrix.[Ref:
SectionStateofPunjabv.GurmitSinghandOrs.reportedasAIR1996SC
1393;SectionLalitYadavv.StateofChhattisgarhreportedas(2018)7SCC
499].AcopyofthejudgmentbeplacedbeforethelearnedPresiding
Officerforperusal.

36.Thetrialcourtrecordbesentbackalongwithacopyofthis
judgment.

(MANOJKUMAROHRI)
JUDGE

(SIDDHARTHMRIDUL)
JUDGE
MAY29,2019/na

CRLA479/2003Page20of20

Leave a Reply

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

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