1980 Supreme(Raj) 245
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Mahendra Bhushan, J.
Sukhmel Singh Bhika and Mohan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1975.
Decided On : 19-03-1980
Advocates:
For the Appellant:L.R. Calla, Advocate.
For the State: S.L. Mardia P.P.
In a case of abduction, corroboration of the prosecutrix's statement is not essential, but the necessity for corroboration should be present in the mind of the Judge, and the Judge may dispense with it, if he is satisfied that it is safe to do so.
Headnote:
ABDUCTION - SECTION 366, IPC - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - CORROBORATION OF PROSECUTRIX'S STATEMENT - NECESSITY - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTION 157 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants were convicted of abducting a 15-year-old girl, Kumari Meena, from her house. The prosecution alleged that the accused took Meena away in a bus, but she managed to jump from the bus and escape. The accused denied the charges, claiming that Premchand, Meena's father, had concocted the case against them because he owed them money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that there was a delay of four days in lodging the FIR, and that Meena's statement was full of improbabilities. The court also found that there was no corroboration of Meena's statement, and that the other witness, Teepu, had made contradictory statements.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affected the credibility of the prosecution's case? 2. Whether Meena's statement could be relied upon without corroboration? 3. Whether there was any corroboration of Meena's statement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was a factor that could be considered in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's case. However, it noted that the delay was not unexplained, as Premchand was away from home at the time of the incident. 2. The court held that corroboration of the prosecutrix's statement is not essential in a case of abduction, but that the necessity for corroboration should be present in the mind of the Judge, and the Judge may dispense with it, if he is satisfied that it is safe to do so. 3. The court found that there was no corroboration of Meena's statement. It noted that Teepu's statement was contradictory, and that no other witnesses had been produced to support Meena's story.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused-appellants of all charges.
JUDGMENT
1. - The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi has convicted the accused-appellant Sukhrnelsingh under Section 366 and 451, IPC. Under the former count, he has been sentenced to two years R I and under the latter count to one year's R.I.. Both the sentences have been ordered to run con currently. The other two accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 366, IPC read with Section 34,IPG, and each of them has been sentenced to one year's R I.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant Sukhmelsingh is a transporter and the other two appellants are his employees They were on visiting terms with Premchand (PW5) father of the prosecutrix Kumari Meena (PW2). It is alleged that Meena was aged about 15 years in the month of July, 1974, and in the night intervening 14/15 7 74, the accused appellants came to the house of Premchand (PW5) He was away as he had come along with his wife and ailing daughter Kanta to Jodhpur for trertment. The accused knocked at the door and they wanted to have the radiator It is alleged that the door was opened by Kumari Meena (PW2) and Mst Teepu, a woman of the age of about 70 years was also present. The three accused took away Kumari Meena by force in a bus,which was standing near the house of Prem Chand and the engine of the bus was on Accused Sukhmelsingh had driven the bus, but hardly the bus had travelled uptb the railway crossing, it had to be stopped because of the barrier. Meena got a chance and she jumped from the bus and got injuries on her knees and she rushed to the house. A cinema bouse was near by, and the second show had ended, and many persons came out of the cinema hall and assembled. No report of the incident was lodged immediately, and it is alleged that this was because Premchand was away to Jodhpur and from Jodhpur he had proceeded to Gujarat. Deodutt (PW 6) the SHO, Bali happened to be in the village Palna on 18 7 74 and came to know about this incident from one Mukhbir and he sent a report to the P S Bali and a case was registered and investigation was sent in motion After investigation a charge sheet was filed.
3. The accused appellants were charged, but they did not plead guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313. Cr P C and the plea of the accused Sukhmelsingh was that Premchand (PW 5) father of Kumari Meena owned a sum of Rs. 1000/ and when he demanded his money, he has concocted a case against him through Kumari Meena, his daughter, He denied that he abducted Kumari Meena, as alleged. He examined few witnesses in defence.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statement of Kumari Meena, and holding that there appears to be no need of corroboration, convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid.
5. The learned Advocate for the appellants has challenged the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that there is delay of about 4 days in lodging the FIR and the story as given by Kumari Meena is full of improbabilities and cannot be relied upon He submits that the statement of Kumari Meena without corroboration cannot be relied upon and if she had jumped from the bus and was hurt, the presence of injuries on her person would have gone a long way to corroborate her statement. The learned P.P. has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. The law is settled that in a case of abduction, corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix is not essential and all that is required is that the necessity for corroboration should be present in the mind of the Judge, and the Judge may dispense with it, if he is satisfied that it is safe to do so. In the instant case, it has come in the statement of Teepu (PW 3), a woman aged about 70 years, that besides the family of Premchand, 3 other families resides in the same house. Even if Premchand was out to Jodhpur and his wife Mohini (PW 4) returned on 15-7 74,
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
