Chouthmal vs State Of Rajasthan

Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.182 dated 8.4.2016 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Kota City under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)

FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that she had been raped by the appellant. Appellant is the father of the prosecutrix.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellant.

Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 376 (2)(f)(i) and (n) IPC and Section 5 (j)(ii), (L)/6 of the Act. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.

Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 6.7.2019 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to charges framed against him. Hence, present appeal by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the star witness of the prosecution, i.e., prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case during trial. There was no other incriminating material on record showing the involvement of the appellant in the crime.

Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness-box as PW-10 deposed that the appellant is her father and had not committed any wrong act with her. In-fact, she was in love with Jeetu and her father did not allow her to go with him. She admitted that her statements had been recorded before the Magistrate as well as the police. The said witness was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but nothing fruitful could be elicited during her cross-examination. She denied the fact that she had been raped by her father.

Thus, in the present case, the star witness of the prosecution, i.e., prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution case during trial. There is also no other connecting evidence on record which could establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime.

Since, the prosecutrix failed to support the prosecution case during trial and there is no other material on record to establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime, the trial Court has erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to the chargers framed against him.

Accordingly, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed. Judgment/order dated 6.7.2019 passed by trial Court are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant namely Chouthmal S/o Shri Devilal is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.