Anita Rani vs Gurdas Singh

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The appeal is preferred by the prosecutrix against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The prosecutrix launched prosecution as against the accused projecting strange and unbelievable story. Unfortunately, the accused stood trial for the offence u/s 376 IPC.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/prosecutrix would submit that the trial Court has totally rejected the evidence of the prosecutrix and her son who spoke about the rape committed by the accused on 10.12.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. As the evidence of those two witnesses will have to be reevaluated, the appeal may be admitted, it was argued.

It is the case of the prosecutrix that the accused had been committing rape for about 25 long years. The offence of rape was committed at the first instance when she was 14 years old. Even after she was married to one Gurmail Singh, the accused continued to rape the prosecutrix on a regular basis.

It is the further case of the prosecutrix that she left her matrimonial home at the instance of the accused and started residing at the residence arranged by accused alongwith her children. The regular visit of the accused had been admitted by the prosecutrix. The incredible story projected by the prosecutrix is that the accused forcibly committed rape upon her by sending her children out of the house.

A specific instance of rape was alleged on 10.12.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. It is true that the prosecutrix as well as her son would speak to the fact that there was a rape committed by the accused on 10.12.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. There was no reason for the prosecutrix not to make any complaint as against the accused for the past 25 years when he had been committing rape upon her against her will. If the rape had been committed under threat, the prosecutrix would not have left the matrimonial home and got herself accommodated in a separate house provided by the accused. The very fact that the prosecutrix had not reported the matter for about 25 years would go to show that the story of the prosecutrix is totally unbelievable.

Two young boys were residing with the prosecutrix. The accused had been visiting the house of the prosecutrix on a regular basis. It is too big a lie to say that the accused having sent away the sons of the prosecutrix committed rape in the morning, evening and night continuously for quite a long time.

It is the case of the prosecutrix that even on 10.12.2011 when the accused was committing rape upon her, her two sons entered into the house and retrieved her. The accused was in a naked condition, it was alleged. Before ever he could he put on his clothes, the two young sons of the prosecutrix could have caught hold of the accused and thrashed him. But it is deposed that the accused went away coolly after committing rape.

It is the admitted case that a partition suit was already laid by the accused. Complaints had been continuously made by the appellant only after such a partition suit was laid by the accused. For all these reasons, in our considered view, the trial Court has rightly rejected the cock-and-bull story of the prosecutrix and recorded acquittal. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.