State of JandK vs Randeep Singh

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.â€"This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2013 rendered by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge

Jammu in case titled State v. Randeep Singh by virtue whereof respondent-Randeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as ""accused"") has been

acquitted of offence under Sections 366/376 of RPC. Learned Sessions Judge found that the deposition of prosecutrix did not inspire confidence.

State has questioned the impugned judgment on various grounds set out in the memo of appeal.

Heard and perused the record.

Allegedly, on 01.04.2007 prosecutrix, who had gone out to appear in the examination of 12th standard, was abducted by the accused who

took her to village Dhungi Simbly tehsil Billawar on his motor cycle from where she was later recovered. Case for offence under Section 366 of

RPC was registered on the basis of a written report lodged by the father of prosecutrix on 03.04.2007. The investigation revealed that the

accused, a Police personnel, had taken the prosecutrix on his motor cycle to a room in Bikram Chowk area four months back and raped her there.

Allegedly, accused had promised to marry prosecutrix and threatened that in the event she disclosed physical relationship between them, he would

defame her. The investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 343/366/376 of RPC. Prosecution

adduced evidence at the trial as the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On consideration of the evidence brought on record by

prosecution at the trial the learned Trial Court found that the testimony of prosecutrix did not inspire confidence. Consequently, the accused was

acquitted.

It emerges from record that the prosecutrix had attained the age of discretion and was familiar with the accused who was her uncle in relation

being a married person residing in her neighbourhood. Therefore, the charge of abduction could not be sustained unless the element of compulsion

or use of force on the part of accused in securing company of prosecutrix was established. On appreciation of testimony of prosecutrix learned

Sessions Judge came to conclusion that prosecutrix voluntarily shared the company of the accused and developed physical relations with him. The

trial Court has referred to the letters of prosecutrix suggesting the accused to divorce his wife and contract marriage with her as she had conceived

from the physical relationship with him. He has also referred to the photographs clicked voluntarily in which prosecutrix figures along with the

accused creating impression of an intimate relationship. Learned Sessions Judge has also referred to pre-occurrence conduct of prosecutrix who

frequently went with the accused to secluded places. He found that the testimony of prosecutrix was not truthful and did not inspire confidence in

regard to allegations of rape. With reference to report of Dr. Anita Raina and opinion of Mr. Kulbushan Gupta, the trial Court found that the

allegation of petitioner being raped on the date of occurrence appeared to be improbable.

On reappraisal of the evidence brought on record during trial we are of the considered opinion that the story projected by prosecutrix before the

trial Court is so improbable that it cannot be believed. We are conscious of the fact that in rape cases testimony of prosecutrix, if found truthful and

reliable, can become the basis for recording conviction of accused even without corroboration. However, the Court has to read the statement of

prosecutrix in its totality and find out whether the version given by prosecutrix is probable. Court will also look for some assurance from other

evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances though short of corroboration. In the instant case, evidence of prosecutrix being a voluntary

participant in having physical relationship with the accused prior to alleged occurrence having been found carrying conviction and her version of

being raped for the first time on a given date as alleged being found improbable, it would be unsafe to act upon her testimony which is found to be

unreliable. The pre-occurrence conduct of prosecutrix does not portray her as a victim of crime but as a voluntary participant having consensual

sex and physical relationship with the accused which resulted in her conceiving a pregnancy and subsequent abortion. We do not find any

substantial and compelling reasons to take a view different from the one taken by learned Sessions Judge. Concurring with findings of Trial Court,

we dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.