State of Punjab vs Som Raj

This appeal has been preferred by the State against acquittal of the respondent of the charge under Sections 376/452/354/511 IPC.

Case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix ''K'' PW 4 was present in the house of her sister at Sujanpur, where marriage of her sister''s daughter was being performed. Her father was sleeping in a separate room and she was sleeping in another room. At 11 PM, the accused-respondent entered her room, put his hands on her mouth, broke open the string of her ''salwar'' and committed rape. He gave a teeth bite on her breast and arms. She raised alarm which attracted her father. Her sister also returned from the place of marriage. The accused ran away from the spot. Her mother returned to the house on 15.4.1993 at 7/8 PM as she had gone to the house of in-laws of Geeta Devi. On 16.4.1993, she accompanied by her father and others was going to the Police Station and made her statement Ex. PC before SI Kashmir Singh PW 6, who met them on the way at Bridge No. 4. SI Kashmir Singh PW 6 recorded the statements of the persons present on the spot. He inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan and sent the prosecutrix for medical examination. Part of investigation was thereafter completed by SI Balbir Singh PW 3, who arrested the accused and got him medically examined.

The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Jaspal Kaur PW 1, who made following observations:

Patient was brought with the history of rape on the night of 14th April 1993 by her relative. On physical examination all the vital signs were normal.

Examination of the breast: Revealed no sighn of fresh or healed scars.

Examination of the arms: Bluish mark of the size 3 x 3 cm were present on the outer aspect of the upper arm. Bluish mark of the right upper arm just below the shoulder joint of the size of approximately 3.5 x 2 cm. Bluish contusion on both thighs on outer aspect of the size of about 1.05 cm. PV examination : Hymen intact. No tear. No bleeding. Pubic hairs were not matted with blood.

Vagina admitted one finger very tightly. No marks of injury on the perineum.

Two swabs were taken from the vagina and sent for chemical analysis, report of which came out to be negative.

The accused was also medico-legally examined by Dr. B.D. Dogra, PW 2, who opined that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse.

After completing investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that there was a proposal for marriage of the prosecutrix with his younger brother Mohinder, which did not materialise on account of which he was falsely implicated.

After considering the evidence on record, the trial court held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that there was inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, even though, according to the prosecution, there were two eye witnesses - sister of the prosecutrix Nirmala Devi, PW 5 and Sewa Ram, father of the prosecutrix. The occurrence took place on 14.4.1993, while the prosecutrix made statement before SI Kashmir Singh PW 6 on 16.4.1993 at 1.25 PM. Her explanation that her mother had gone out and came only on 15.4.1993 at 7/8 PM, was not acceptable. It was further observed that statement of PW 4 ''K'' did not inspire confidence as she made improvements in her original version. The evidence of PW 1 Dr. Jaspal Kaur was that hymen was intact and there was no tear or bleeding and pubic hairs were not matted with blood and vagina admitted one finger very tightly. She ruled out possibility of rape on the basis of PV examination. She also did not find any sign of fresh or healed scars on the breast, which negatived the version of the prosecutrix that the accused gave teeth bite on her breast. Report of the Chemical Examiner was that no spermatozoa was found on the ''salwar'' or on vagina swabs.

We have heard learned Counsel for the State and perused the reasons given by the trial court for not accepting the prosecution evidence.

The medical examination clearly negatives the possibility of rape having been committed. Even if delay in lodging FIR is ignored, the version of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence. In these circumstances, the respondent was entitled to benefit of doubt. Even if two views are possible, interference with acquittal of the respondent is not called for.

Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:

The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, . The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, :

While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.

In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.