Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 874
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
CHHOGA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
S. B. Criminal Appeal 472 Of 1987
Decided On : 11/05/2003
B.N.Calla, Panne Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the significance of corroborating evidence in cases of abduction and rape.
Headnote:
ABDUCTION - Rape - 366, 376 I. P. C. - The court discussed the medical evidence, the statement of the prosecutrix, and the absence of injuries on her person to conclude that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, and the accused appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 366 and 376 I. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix was allegedly abducted and raped by the accused appellant. The trial court convicted the accused appellant based on the prosecutrix's statement and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix's statement was not reliable and trustworthy, and it did not inspire confidence. The absence of injuries on the prosecutrix's person and the lack of independent evidence led the court to conclude that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused appellant was guilty of abduction and rape based on the prosecutrix's statement and medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the onus is on the prosecution to prove each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the significance of corroborating evidence and the presumption of innocence of the accused.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused appellant of the charges under Sections 366 and 376 I. P. C. and allowed the appeal.
SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 10/11/1987 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in rajasthan High Court Page 2 of 6 sessions Case No. 42/1986 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced accused appellant as under: Section Sentence awarded 366 I. P. C. 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200. 00
in default to further undergo 1 monthss S. I. 376 I. P. C. 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 300. 00
in default to further undergo 1 monthss S. I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
( 2 ) IT arises in the following circumstances (i) P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin lodged a written report (Ex. P/13) with the Police Station City Kotwali, Bhilwara on 12/4/1986 stating inter alia that on that day, he came to Bhilwara and at about 2 p. m. when he was in the shop near Gd Pyau in Bazar No. 2, then a person of wheatish colour wearing white shirt and Dhoti came there and met him, upon this P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin told him that he had to go to Haled, thereupon that person told him that a tractor was going towards Haled and, therefore, he could also come with him. P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin has further stated in his report Ex. P/13 that at that time, his daughter Chandi, P. W. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) was also with him. It was further stated by P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin in his report (Ex. P/13) that thereafter he went with that person for checking the tractor. It was further stated by P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin in his report (Ex. P/13) that after sometime, that person went back on cycle leaving P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin there and thereafter when P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin came back to the shop situated near Gd Pyau, he did not find his daughter P. W. 2 Chandi there. It was further stated by P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin in his report (Ex. P/13) that when P. W. 1 Shambhu Gin made enqui-ries he was told by other person that Chhoga (accused appellant) had abducted his daughter P. W. 2 Chandi from there. (ii) On the basis of this report (Ex. P. 13), the police chalked out regular FIR and started investigation. (iii) That P. W. 2 Chandi was got re-covered on 14-4-1986 through Fard Ex. P/6 and thereafter she was got medically examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether rape was committed with her or not and her medical examination report is Ex. P/9. She was also got medically examined for the purpose of ascertaining her age and her medical examination report regarding her age is Ex. P/12. (iv) That during investigation, accused appellant was arre-sted through Fard (Ex. P/7) on 8-5- 1986. (v) That after investigation, the police submitted challan against accused appellant for offence under Sections 366 and 376 I. P. C.
( 3 ) THAT on 14-8-1986, charges for offence under Sections 366 and 376 I. P. C. were framed against accused appellant by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
( 4 ) AT the trial, prosecution exa-mined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. Rajasthan High Court Page 3 of 6 accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied to have committed any offence and one witness was examined by the accused appellant in defence.
( 5 ) AT the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge through his judgment and order dtd. 10-11-1987 convicted and sentenced accused appellant as stated above inter alia holding (i) That the age of the prosecutrix P. W. 2 Chandi was above 18 years on the date of occurre n ce. (ii) That accused appellant abdu-cted P. W. 2 Chandi with an intention to have illicit relation with her and there-after committed rape with her.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED from the judgment and order dtd. 10-1-1987 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.
( 7 ) IN this appeal, the main submission of the learned counsel appearing for accused appellant is that the learned Addi. Sessions Judge has
