AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years
Under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years
The sentences are directed to run concurrently
The prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed that on the date of incident at about 12 noon, when she was alone at her house, the Appellant came there and",
knocked the door of the house. She opened the door. He asked her who is present at the house. She told him that she was alone. He had come to give,
voter-slip for the election. After giving her the voter-slip, he took her inside the room. He caused her to fall down on a cot. He gagged her mouth with",
a bed-sheet. He removed her underwear. When she tried to shout, he told her that he will press her neck. Therefore, due to fear, she did not shout.",
She has further stated that he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She smeared with blood. The clothes were also tainted with blood.,
Thereafter, the Appellant went way from there. At about 1:00 p.m., her jija Udhoram (PW3) came there. She, weeping, opened the door of the house.",
At that time, she did not tell him anything about the incident. Thereafter, Udhoram returned. At about 1:30 p.m., her sister Vimlalbai (PW2) reached",
home. She told her about the incident. In cross-examination, she has stated that she was smeared with blood, therefore, she did not come out and told",
about the incident to anyone. She also did not tell about the incident to the wife of her neighbour Khilawan. In paragraph 21, she has stated that due to",
election, the police party had come to the village, but she did not tell them anything about the incident. In paragraph 17, she has stated that no sexual",
intercourse was done with her before the incident.,
Vimlabai (PW2), sister of the prosecutrix has stated that she had gone to the agricultural field. When she returned home at about 1:30 p.m., the",
prosecutrix told her about the incident. She saw that bed was smeared with blood. Sameez and skirt of the prosecutrix were also smeared with blood.,
She has further stated that she had told about the incident to her husband Udhoram (PW3). Her husband, searching for the Appellant, went out of the",
house. The Appellant was found at the house of Domar. The Appellant admitted his guilt in front of all the persons present there.,
Udhoram (PW3), jija (brother-in-law) of the prosecutrix has stated that when he returned home at about 1:15 p.m., his wife Vimlabai (PW2) told",
him that the Appellant had entered the house and committed rape with the prosecutrix. Then he went to the parents of the Appellant to tell them about,
the incident. He told the parents of the Appellant about the incident. The Appellant admitted his guilt and apologised for the guilt by touching his feet.,
Head Constable Kapishwar Singh (PW6) is the witness who lodged the FIR (Ex.P1) and seized sameez and skirt of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P2 in,
which blood stains were present.,
Kotwar Mayaram (PW4) has stated that in his presence vide seizure memo (Ex.P2), sameez and skirt of the prosecutrix, which were smeared",
with blood stains, were seized and kathari, which was also smeared with blood stains, was seized vide Ex.P5.",
The seized sameez, skirt and kathari were examined by Dr. Shashi Cladius (PW9). She found 11 blood like spots on the skirt, 24 blood like spots",
on the sameez and 6-7 blood like spots on the kathari. Her reports are Ex.P11A and P12A. She has admitted the fact that trace of the blood stains,
could be determined whether they were of human blood or of any animal blood by FSL examination. The FSL report (Ex.P13) is positive in respect of,
sameez of the prosecutrix, but with regard to other clothes, the report is negative.",
Dr. Shashi Cladius (PW9) also examined the prosecutrix on 25.11.1998. She has stated that her report is Ex.P10A in which she found that the,
prosecutrix had not suffered any injury on her body nor on her private part. No swelling or injury or redness was present on the private parts labia,
majora or labia minora. Hymen was old ruptured. 2 fingers were easily being inserted into the vagina of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was found to,
be habitual to sexual intercourse. No definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse with her. In paragraph 8, she has categorically",
stated that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse and she had already undergone sexual intercoursemany times. No injury was found on,
her private part, either internal or external.",
Station House Officer T.R. Kanwar (PW8) was the Investigating Officer of the offence in question. He has stated that he investigated into the,
offence and during the investigation, he seized kathari and mark-sheet vide Ex.P5. He prepared spot-map (Ex.P3). He also seized pant and underwear",
of the Appellant vide Ex.P7 and recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,
On minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that though the prosecutrix has stated that the Appellant had committed rape with her",
after entering her house, her statement does not inspire confidence of this Court because as stated by her, she did not know the Appellant from",
before. The Appellant had come to her house for giving voter-slip in respect of election. The incident took place at about 12 noon. In these,
circumstances, an unknown person would enter the house of the prosecutrix and commit rape with her appears to be suspicious. Furthermore, as",
stated by the prosecutrix, no sexual intercourse was done with her before the incident. When the Appellant committed rape with her, she suffered",
excessive bleeding and blood smeared over the kathari spread over the bed as also over her sameez and skirt. The sister and brother-in-law of the,
prosecutrix have also supported the version of the prosecutrix. Dr. Shashi Cladius (PW9), who examined the skirt, sameez and kathari and gave her",
reports Ex.P11A and P12A, found 11 blood like spots on the skirt, 24 blood like spots on the sameez and 6-7 blood like spots on the kathari.",
But, as stated by Dr. Shashi Cladius (PW9), in her report Ex.P10A, she found the prosecutrix to be habitual to sexual intercourse. She did not find any",
injury over the private part of the prosecutrix either internal or external nor did she find any injury over any other part of her body. In these,
circumstances, if blood stains were found on the kathari, skirt and sameez, it does not appear to be natural. There is possibility that the prosecutrix and",
her sister and brother-in-law, with an intent to falsely implicate the Appellant, would have smeared the said 3 clothes with blood stains.",
With regard to extra judicial confession of the Appellant, though Vimlabai (PW2), sister of the prosecutrix and Udhoram (PW3), brother-in-law of",
the prosecutrix have stated that when Udhoram had gone to the house of the Appellant, at that time, the Appellant, in presence of his parents and",
other villagers, had told that “gka eSaus xyrh dh gS†and he had apologised by falling down on the feet of Udhoram, who were the villagers",
present at that time, their names have not been disclosed by Udhoram nor has the prosecution examined them. Merely because the Appellant admitted",
that he had committed mistake, it cannot be treated to be his extra judicial confession admitting commission of rape by him with the prosecutrix.",
Therefore, this confessional statement also does not support the case of the prosecution. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has",
not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt.",
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges",
framed against him.,
It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of the provisions,
contained in Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,
Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,