Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : G.L. Gupta
Fota and Damra - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 1998
Decided On : 01/21/1999
Section 376 - Rape - IPC - [Section 376, IPC] - The court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not reliable and the medical evidence did not support her claims, leading to the acquittal of the accused under Section 376, IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged rape of a woman by two accused, Fota and Damra, which was reported to have occurred in a village. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the victim and witness accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as the witness accounts did not support the prosecution's version and the medical evidence contradicted the victim's claims.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the victim's testimony, the lack of witness support for the prosecution's case, and the significance of the medical evidence in determining the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of corroborating evidence for the victim's testimony, the inconsistencies in the witness accounts, and the medical evidence that did not support the victim's claims.
Final Decision: The court acquitted Fota of the rape charge under Section 376, IPC and partly allowed Damra's appeal, setting aside his conviction under Section 376/34, IPC but maintaining his conviction under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act.
G.L. Gupta, J.-Through this appeal under Section 3 74(2), CrPC Fota and Damra have called in question the Judgment dated 23-3-98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer where by he convicted Fota under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and Damra Under Section 376/34, IPC and Under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to five years
R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-under the first count, and one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-under the second count.
2. The case relates to an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 5-8-97 at 3 p.m. in village Dhanau, 30 kms. away from Police Station Chauhatan. The prosecution case is that Kumari ‘B’ (name withheld by me) (PW 12) was returning to her house from the flour mill along with Rama (PW 13) when the two accused met her and dragged her to some distance. It is alleged that she was raped by Fota and accused Damra remained standing having a gun in his hand. The victim reported the matter to her mother and father and other persons whereupon report Exhibit P-4 was lodged on the next day at 5 p.m. After the registration of the case, the police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. K. C. Chopra, PW. 1, Dr. Anil Kumar Goyal, PW. 14 and Dr. Saroj Choudhary, PW 15. After the accused were arrested, weapons were recovered at their instance. On the completion of the investigation a challan was filed.
3. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed a change Under Section 376, IPC against Fota and charges u/ Section 376/34, IPC and Under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act against Damra. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. Accused in their statements Under Section 313 CrPC denied accusation. They led no evidence in defense. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the Addl. Sessions Judge found the charges proved. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as stated above.
4. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Appellants pointed out that the occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by three persons but they do not support the prosecution case. He further pointed out that even the parents and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix do not support the prosecution story. He submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not sterling worth on which conviction can be founded. For the reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory and Serologist, his contention was that they could not be acted upon as they were not put to the accused in their statements Under Section 313, CrPC
5. Ms. Chandralekha, on the other hand, supported the Judgment of the trial Court. Her contention was that there could not be any reason for the prosecutrix to implicate the accused in a false case. Her submission was that the parents have not supported the prosecution story because of the compromise entered into between them and the accused.
6. I have carefully considered the above arguments. The prosecution case, as deposed by the prosecutrix, is that she was returning along with Rama when the accused met her on the way having axe and gun in their hands. Fota told her to accompany him to Maharashtra and on her refusal he inflicted four injuries to her and Damra remained standing at some distance having a gun in his hand. She deposes that her brother Rama, PW. 13 rushed to inform Tiku, but in the meantime Fota took her behind the bushes and committed rape on her. According to her, when Fota was assaulting her Tiku had reached there but Damra threatened him to be killed if he went nearer. Her further statement is that blood had come out from her private parts.
7. Thestatement of the prosecutrix indicates that the occurrence was witnessed at least by two persons Rama and Tiku. Rama, PW. 13 is the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, which fact is evident by the statement of Rupa, PW. 10 (mother) who says that her
AI
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
