State of H.P. vs Tara Chand and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.1997 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 5/97 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 3.2.1997 the prosecutrix had gone to the house of her aunt (father''s sister) Smt. Almu. She reached the house at about 5.00 p.m. Her uncle, husband of Almu, had taken liquor and gone to sleep. Her cousin Amra and Kali, daughter of Almu and she took meals and then slept in one room. Accused No. 2 Dole Ram was staying in another room. At about 2.00 a.m., both the accused came to the room where she was sleeping with Amra and Kali. They asked the prosecutrix to get up. They then took the prosecutrix and Amra to the house of Tara Chand. Amra and the prosecutrix slept in one room. After some time, the accused Tara Chand came to the room and asked the prosecutrix to get up as he had some work with her. She accompanied him to the adjoining room. There accused Tara Chand forced her to lie on the bed and committed rape on her. Thereafter, Dole Ram entered the said room, took off his pants and committed rape on the prosecutrix. Then the accused persons took her and Amra back to the house of Smt. Almu.

Next morning, both the accused took the prosecutrix to the house of sister of accused Dole Ram in village Raugi. They stayed there for some time during the day and then returned to the house of the prosecutrix in village Jana where she narrated the incident to her mother. Since her father was not present complaint was not lodged that day. The father returned next day. Then the parents and the prosecutrix discussed the matter and took the prosecutrix to the Police Station, Manali and thereafter a complaint was lodged with the police on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PA was recorded. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Further investigation was done and after completion of investigation the accused was charged with having committed offences aforesaid. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused after trial. Hence the present appeal.

The prosecutrix in her statement in Court admitted that her father had only one real sister and her name is Tapri and not Almu. In Court her version is that Almu is in fact the sister of father of Dole Ram. She then gave different version and stated that Almu is the mother of accused Taru. She also admitted that there is some monetary dispute between her father and accused Tara Chand. The prosecutrix admitted that village Raugi is one hour''s walk from village Jana and that they met numerous persons while they were walking from village Raugi to village Jana. She admitted that her parents had instituted similar cases earlier also but she was not aware about the details thereof.

PW-2 is the mother of the prosecutrix. According to her, prosecutrix had gone to the house of Tapri, who is the real sister of her husband. Next day, the prosecutrix returned at about 4.00 p.m. and informed her that Amra and the prosecutrix had slept in one room in the house of Tapri. The accused persons were also in the same house and at about 2.00 a.m. the two accused woke up Amra and the prosecutrix and took them to the house of Tara Chand where the prosecutrix was raped by both the accused. In cross-examination she admitted that she had lodged one complaint u/s 376 IPC earlier against SHO Amar Singh. She also admitted that she had filed numerous complaints before the Chief Justice and the Lokayukta against a number of persons. She feigned ignorance that she and her husband filed various complaints alleging sexual assault against many persons in high places which had all been dismissed.

PW-3 Lihat Ram the father also gave a similar version. He, however, admitted that his wife PW-2 had instituted complaint u/s 376 against Amar Singh, the then SHO, which had been dismissed by Court. He also admitted that he had instituted numerous complaints before the higher authorities at Shimla and Kullu. He also admitted that he instituted numerous complaints of illicit felling against various persons. He, however, denied the suggestion that he and his wife had made it a habit to institute false cases with a view to get money from the accused.

Tapri Devi, aunt of the prosecutrix, and sister of PW-3 was the most important witness. She was not examined. Even Amra was not examined. Almu was examined as DW-1. She clearly stated that the prosecutrix and Kali did not come to her house and never stayed in her house on any day. She denied that the prosecutrix is the daughter of her brother. She denied that she is in any manner related to the father of the prosecutrix.

Normally, this Court would not accept a plea that the parents of a young girl would stake her reputation and lodge a false case just to settle scores with some persons. However, here we are dealing with the parents who had earlier instituted similar proceedings against a police official which had been decided in favour of police official and it was found that the complaint was false. They had also filed many other false complaints.

From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the parents of the prosecutrix are in the habit of making complaints against persons in high places, against persons involved in business and against persons with whom their relations are not cordial. It has also come in evidence that thereafter these cases are settled by taking money. The fact that the case is totally false is apparent from the fact that according to the prosecutrix the occurrence took place in the house of Almu, sister of her father but Almu is not her father''s sister. It stands proved on record that her father''s real sister is Tapri. In fact one of the accused is the son of Almu. According to the prosecutrix, she was taken to the house of accused Tara Chand from the house of Almu but Almu had stated that Tara Chand is her son and Dole Ram is her nephew. To this aspect there is no cross-examination. It is apparent that Tara chand was living with Almu. He never had a separate house. It has also come in evidence that the father of the prosecutrix had some monetary dispute against accused Tara Chand. This monetary dispute was referred for decision to the local deity and a Panchayat had pronounced decision in favour of Tara Chand and against Lihat Ram, father of the prosecutrix. In that case Dole Ram had appeared as a witness for Tara Chand. Therefore, the relations between the parties were strained. There is no reason why the prosecutrix would go to stay in the house of a person with whom the relations were strained. In fact, according to the mother of the prosecutrix Almu is residing with Tara Chand as his concubine, whereas according to Almu she is married to Khub Ram and Tara Chand is his son and she had not been cross-examined on this aspect. No reliance can be placed on the statement of the person who make such a reckless allegation that the mother Almu is living as a concubine with Tara Chand, who is actually her son.

In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the learned trail Court was fully justified in holding that a totally false case has been lodged by the prosecutrix at the instance of her parents. We find no reason to differ with the judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.