AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(iii) & (i) Cr.P.C . has been preferred on behalf of the appellant - State of Rajasthan being aggrieved with the judgment dated 01.06.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu [Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Churu] (hereinafter to be referred as "the trial Court") whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi) & 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Act of 1989'').
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State of Rajasthan has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondent for the charges for which he was charged. It is argued that from the statement of the prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo and from the statement of witnesses PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand,l it is proved that on 17.09.1991 at about 4:00 pm, the accused/respondent has committed rape upon the prosecutrix, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste. It is contended that the prosecutrix PW-4 Mst.
Rajo in her statement has categorically stated that when she was working in the field on the day of incident, the accused/ respondent came there and dragged her for 50-60 feet and thereafter has forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further argued that PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deep Chand have witnessed the incident and they have also stated before the learned trial Court that on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, they reached at the agricultural field of Shrichand where the prosecutrix was working. They found that the accused/respondent was lying on the prosecutrix and on seeing them, he ran from
there. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, has found that the allegation of rape levelled against the accused/respondent was proved. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charges levelled against the accused/respondent for which he was charged, however, the learned trial Court, without taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective, has acquitted the accused/respondent for the charges for which he was charged.
Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Gupta appearing for the accused/respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused/respondent by producing cogent and reliable evidence and, therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused/ respondent and no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned judgment by the learned trial Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the accused/respondent that as a matter of fact, the relationship between the prosecutirx and the accused/ respondent were consensual and as such, it cannot be said that the accused/respondent has committed rape upon the prosecutirx.
Learned counsel for the accused/respondent has prayed that the instant appeal filed by the State may kindly be dismissed while maintaining the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scrutinized the record of the case.
FIR No. 205/1991 was registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu on 18.09.1991 against the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 / 11 of the Act of 1989. In the FIR, it was alleged that when the prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo was working in the agricultural field of Shrichand Jat on 17.09.1991, at about 4:00 pm, the accused/respondent came into the field and has caught hold of her and dragged her for about 50-60 feet and thereafter forcibly committed rape upon her. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the prosecutirx has raised cries and on hearing this, PW-5 Deepchand came there and on seeing him, the accused/respondent ran away from the sport. The Police, after investigating into the allegations levelled in the FIR, has filed charge-sheet against the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi) & 3(ii)(v) of the Act of 1989. The learned trial Court has also framed charges against the accused/respondent for the aforesaid offences. However, the accused/respondent has denied the charges and claimed trial.
The prosecution has produced as many as 10 witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the accused/ respondent. Out of those 10 witnesses, two witnesses, namely, PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand were termed as eye-witnesses of the incident. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-4. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand and has come to the conclusion that in the FIR, the prosecutrix has not stated that PW-
1 Chandgi Ram also reached at the spot after hearing her cries.
The learned trial Court has observed that enmity between the accused/respondent and PW-1 Chandgi Ram is admitted by PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand. The trial Court has also observed that even if it is assumed that PW-1 Chandgi Ram and PW-5 Deepchand have witnessed the incident then also, the accused/respondent cannot be held guilty for the commission of rape upon the prosecutrix as both the witnesses have stated that when they reached at the sport then they found that the accused/respondent was lying on the prosecutrix and on seeing them, he ran away from there.
The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence of the prosecutrix PW-4 Mst. Rajo in detail and has observed that the prosecutrix has not named PW-1 Chandgi Ram as an eye-witnesses of the incident in the FIR but in her Court statements, she has stated that PW-1 Chandgi Ram has also witnessed the incident. The learned trial Court has further observed that the prosecutrix has stated in her Court statements that after caught hold of her, the accused/respondent has dragged her for about 50- 60 feet and thereafter forcibly committed rape upon her. The trial Court is of the opinion that the said version of the prosecutrix cannot be believed because as per the medical report, no injury on the body of the prosecutrix was found during the course of her medical examination. The trial Court has further taken into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix wherein, she has specifically stated that during the commission of rape by the accused/respondent, she hugged him. The learned trial Court is of the opinion that if the accused/respondent was committing rape upon the prosecutrix, she could have resisted as the prosecutrix is fully grown up lady of 30 years and it cannot be expected from her that when the accused/respondent was committing rape upon her, she has hugged her.
After discussing the evidence of the prosecutrix in detail, the learned trial Court has opined that there is all possibility that the relationship between the accused/ respondent and the prosecutrix were consensual and on account of enmity of the accused/respondent with PW-1 Chandgi Ram, a false case has been registered against him.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused/respondent for the charges, are not liable to be interfered with. Hence, there is no force in this appeal preferred by the appellant-State and, therefore, the same is dismissed.