Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mahant Digamber Tejgiri alias Mauni Baba alias Tarsaim Singh – Appellant
versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2019
Decided on 11.1.2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376 (2) (n), 506 Part II, 465 and 471 – Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 66 C – Rape, criminal intimidation and Video-graphy – Conviction and sentence – Case of prosecution is that appellant used to rape prosecutrix by showing her pornographic pictures on his mobile phone – Prosecutrix is a married woman aged about 35 years and having two children – No obscene video or any obscene photo was found in Mobile Phones – Suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof – Large distance between “may be true” and “must be true”, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by prosecution, before accused is condemned as a convict and basic and golden rule must be applied – Prosecution has failed to establish commission of alleged offence by appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and he deserves benefit of doubt – Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 28, 36, 38, 39, 40 and 41)
Result: Criminal Jail Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J.—Present Criminal Jail Appeal has been received from the Superintendent of District Jail, Haridwar. The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.02.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2014, “State vs. Mahant Digamber Tejgiri alias Mauni Baba alias Tarsaim Singh”, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”); he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 506 part II IPC; he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 471 IPC read with Section 465 IPC, and, he has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 66 C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from the re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that, on 04.09.2013, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR (Ext. Ka. 4) through her written information (Ext. Ka. 1) that the appellant, a monk, was residing in Kaushalya Devi Temple, located at village Hudaiti. She had gone to the said temple one year ago to attend the religious function “Jagar”. Appellant applied vibhuti on her and then committed rape with her. Appellant made her video during the said incident. After showing the said video and threatening her, he used to commit rape on her regularly.
3. The First Information Report was registered at 14:10 hrs. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She was medically examined. Two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest. The said two mobile phones were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
4. The case was committed to the Court of Session.
5. The charges under Sections 376, 506, 468 IPC and Section 66 C read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were framed. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined altogether fourteen witnesses.
7. The written information (Ext. Ka. 1) was written by Kamal Kishore (PW1) at the behest of the prosecutrix.
8. The prosecution witness PW2 is the prosecutrix.
9. Kamal Upreti (PW3) and Shekhar Upreti (PW6) are residents of the prosecutrix’s village. According to Kamal Upreti, the prosecutrix told him that the appellant had raped her and used to rape her continuously by showing obscene photos on his mobile phone, and, as per Shekhar Upreti, the prosecutrix had told him that the appellant used to do wrong acts with her.
10. The prosecution witness Dr. Tara Baseda (PW4) is a Medical Officer.
11. The prosecution’s witness PW5 is the minor son and PW7 is the minor daughter of the prosecutrix.
12. Constable Prakash Ram (PW8) is the scriber of the First Information Report (Ext. Ka. 4).
13. Sub-Inspector Vijaya (PW9) and the Investigating Officer G.P. Bonthiyal (PW14) arrested the appellant on 04.09.2013 at 17:30 hrs from the Ghat Road Jakh, Puran Tiraha and while arresting him, two mobile phones were recovered from his possession.
14. The ID of the SIM cards of the mobile phones, recovered from the possession of the appellant, was taken by Sub-Inspector Dharmveer Solanki (PW10).
15. The prosecution’s witness Madan Chandra Joshi (PW11) and Jugal Kishore Bhatt (PW13) are shopkeepers.
16. The SIM cards recovered from the appellant’s mobile phones were kept on surveillance by constable Lalit Kumar (PW12).
17. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of
Suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof – Large distance between “may be true” and “must be true”, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence.
The sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible and reliable, can lead to conviction without corroboration, and legal presumptions regarding lack of consent in rape cases play a crucial role in es....
The conviction for rape can be upheld based on the victim's credible testimony, even in the absence of corroborative physical evidence, emphasizing the importance of direct ocular evidence.
The evidence of a prosecutrix must be credible and consistent for a conviction in rape cases; contradictions and lack of supporting evidence can lead to acquittal.
Offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of inno....
Criminal Law - Rape case - Conviction set aside- Sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not of a sterling character and is belied by medical and scientific evidence. As per the material brought on reco....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence in rape cases and the principle that serious infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosec....
The conviction for rape can stand on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, despite deficiencies in the investigation process.
The conviction for rape based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony was quashed due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, emphasizing the need for reliable and corroborated testimony....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
