Trilok Singh vs State of Uttaranchal

Irshad Hussain, J.—Appellant Trilok Singh, a police head constable was prosecuted on the report of the police, P.S. Lohaghat, District Champawat for committing an offence punishable u/s 376/511 of the I.P.C. He was held guilty and convicted u/s 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone (49 days) and a fine of Rs. 500.00, per judgment and order dated 28.06.2001 by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh.

The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 10.2.2002 at about 5.30 a.m. in the town of Champawat in front of the house of P.W. 1, Devendra Singh Manral, the Appellant made an attempt to commit rape on an unknown insane lady. The F.I.R. of the case was lodged by P.W. 1 at 3.30 p.m. the same day and on investigation of the case charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant. Appellant had denied the accusation of the prosecution and claimed that complainant Devendra Singh Manral was engaged in illegal liquor trafficking in the year 1999 and when he had objected to it, complainant felt displeased and roped him in the false case.

Prosecution in order to prove the charges levelled against the Appellant examined three witnesses. Of these three, P.W. 1, Devendra Singh Manral is the complainant, an eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 Smt. Saraswati is the wife of the said complainant. They claimed that an insane lady of about fifty years of age normally used to sit outside their staircase and sometimes she used to remain away from there. On 10.2.2000, their pet cow was expected to give birth to a calf and the said couple was awake that night for the expected moment. At about 5.30 a.m., P.W. 2 went outside her house to have a look on the pet cow. She found an unknown man wearing a long coat with a club in the hand putting that insane lady to fear by saying that she would receive the club or she would have the ''Rat-Wala Danda''. The wife of the complainant disclosed this thing to the complainant who then went out and told that man that the insane lady be spared and need not to be disturbed. The complainant then asked his wife, P.W. 2 to go downwards and take care of the cow. As soon as this witness returned to that place she found that man lying flat over that insane lady who was protesting action of that man by saying ''Nahin-Nahin''. Wife of complainant again disclosed this thing to her husband who caught hold of the miscreant and sent his wife to the police chowki and that man was handed over to the police. P.W. 3, S.I. Satya Brat has investigated the case.

Learned Sessions Judge made appreciation of the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that from the evidence on record it was not established that the Appellant had made any attempt to commit rape on that insane lady, but was of the view that the Appellant had made assault or used criminal force to said woman with intent to outrage her modesty by lying on her person and thus found the offence punishable u/s 354 of the I.P.C. proved beyond doubt against the Appellant. The Appellant was thus convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Addl. Government Advocate and have considered the evidence on record, the circumstances and probabilities of the case. There can be no doubt that as per the allegations of the F.I.R. and the evidence of the prosecution as adduced in the case there was no attempt to commit rape on the unknown insane lady. So far as the inference drawn from the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is concerned, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not convincing and that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in placing implicit reliance on their evidence.

At the outset it need to be mentioned that the submission of the learned Counsel has force. The reason is that according to the witnesses the Appellant was first of all seen scolding the insane lady and the Appellant was asked not to disturb that lady and spare her as such. It is obvious that the Appellant was made aware that the inhabitants of the house where the insane lady was lying or sitting were awake at that early hour of the winter morning. In such a situation it could not have been expected that the Appellant would thereafter try to assault or put criminal force to that insane lady with intent to outrage her modesty. No doubt, the complainant and his wife were respectable citizens of the town, but mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof of an offence against a person. It will be pertinent to mention that the occurrence is said to be of the early hours of the morning, but the F.I.R. was lodged after considerable delay at 3.30 p.m. for which no plausible explanation has been put forward by the complainant.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that there was no occasion for the complainant to have lodged a false report against the Appellant and that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the evidence of the complainant and his wife was rightly believed by the learned Sessions Judge. As mentioned above mere suspicion cannot take the proof of commission of offence and even if the Appellant was seen in the vicinity and near the insane lady, the evidence of the witnesses was not sufficient to saddle the Appellant with the liability of committing the crime punishable u/s 354 of the I.P.C. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is a case in which the Appellant deserves to be extended benefit of doubt and is not held guilty of the offence accordingly.

In the result this appeal succeeds and is to be allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.6.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh is hereby set aside. Fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the Appellant.