State (NCT of Delhi) vs Kallu Rajput @ Hira Lal, S/o Sh. Acheya Lai @ Mohan Lai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
State (NCT of Delhi) – Appellant
Versus
Kallu Rajput @ Hira Lal, S/o Sh. Acheya Lai @ Mohan Lai - Respondent
Crl.A. 284 of 2018
Decided on : 20-01-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Utkarsh, Sub-Inspector Arti, Police Station Vasant Kunj.
For the Respondent:Shri Siddharth Verma and Mr. Ravi Bhushan, Advocates

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1860 - Section 164, 378 - Committed rape - Judgment of acquittal - Recording of confessions and statements - Appeal in case of acquittal - Judgment of acquittal is illegal and improper and same has been passed in ignorance of material evidence against respondent/accused - According to him, judgment of acquittal is contrary to law laid down by Hon;ble Supreme Court and this Court - He, therefore, submitted that learned trial court has erred in acquitting respondent/accused - Held, In said decision it has been held that if “possible view” of trial court is not agreeable to High Court, even then such “possible view” recorded by trial court cannot be interdicted - It is further held that so long as view of trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether High Court agrees with same or not, verdict of trial court cannot be interdicted and High Court cannot supplant over view of trial court - Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to successfully prove charge beyond a reasonable doubt - On examination of material available on record, court is not inclined to take a different view other than view which has already been taken by court below - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in connection with FIR No. 296/2013 at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South), Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short “IPC”).

2. Learned APP for the State submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal and improper and the same has been passed in ignorance of material evidence against the respondent/accused. According to him, the judgment of acquittal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon;ble Supreme Court and this Court. He, therefore, submitted that the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the respondent/accused.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, the reasoning given by the learned trial court for the acquittal of the respondent/accused is based on sound legal principle that the respondent/accused cannot be convicted unless the prosecution proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr, 2022 SCC Online SC 1532, Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174, Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, AIR 2002 SC 3582, Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SC 259, Narasappa vs State of Karnataka, (2007) 10 SC 770, Narender Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi, (2012) 7 SCC 171, Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 (10) SCC 740, and State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Anr, 2011 (11) SCC 666.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2013, the prosecutrix (PW-4) with her sister-in-law Shayam Bai (PW-5) had gone in the jungles of Ghitorni to collect firewood. During the search for firewood, her sister in-law (PW-5) went in the other direction and meanwhile the accused, namely, Kallu Rajput came from behind and grabbed the prosecutrix (PW-4). Thereafter, the respondent/accused made her lie down on the ground and committed rape on her. When the prosecutrix tried to raise an alarm, the respondent/accused told her to keep quiet as nobody would be able to hear her in the jungle. After the incident, the prosecutrix came back with PW-5 and narrated the incident to her husband Asha Ram (PW-3).

6. Thereafter, PW 3 (husband) called the PCR on 100 number and Head Constable Rajneesh (PW-8) posted in PCR West Zone recorded the said PCR call vide DD No.39/A exhibited as Ex.PW 8/A. The said DD entry was handed over to Women Sub Inspector Surekha (PW-17) PS Fatehpur Beri, who visited the prosecutrix and PW-3 at Babe Mohalla, Near Mangal Dass Mandir, Delhi. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to PW-17 (WSI Surekha), whereafter they visited the accused, namely, Kallu Rajput who was then taken into custody in the Emergency Response Vehicle, PS Fatehpur Beri.

7. After the respondent/accused was taken into custody, the prosecutrix PW-4, her husband PW-3 went along with PW-17 to the place of the incident and it was revealed that the jurisdiction did not fall within PS Fatehpur Beri, rather the jurisdiction fell within PS Vasant Kunj (South). From the place of the incident, PW-17 took them to PS Vasant Kunj (South) and handed them over to Women Sub-Inspector Brahmo Devi (PW-18). Then PW-18 recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, prepared the rukka and the same was handed over to Duty Officer (PW-1), who registered the FIR bearing No. 296/2013, exhibited as Ex.PW1/A, and the investigation was assigned to PW-18.

8. PW-18 took the prosecutrix (PW-4) along with