2002 Supreme(Raj) 1405
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
O.P.Bishnoi, J.
Bhanwra Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1993.
Decided On : 22-03-2002
Advocates:
For the Appellant:S.K. Goyal, Advocate.
For the Party: O.P. Singhania, Public Prosecutor.
Scrutiny of evidence, reliability of witness testimonies, and impact of discrepancies on trial court conclusions.
Headnote:
IPC - Assault - 354 - Summary: The court discussed the incident and the conflicting versions presented by both sides. It highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, such as the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of evidence for the alleged injuries, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The court found the conclusions drawn by the trial court not sustainable and acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under section 354 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was found guilty under section 354 of the IPC for an incident involving an alleged assault on the prosecutrix. The prosecution's version of the incident conflicted with the defense's account, leading to a trial with cross-cases filed by both sides.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of evidence for the alleged injuries, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. It concluded that the conclusions drawn by the trial court were not sustainable and acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under section 354 of the IPC.
Issues: Conflicting versions of the incident, discrepancies in evidence, delay in lodging the FIR, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing evidence and highlighted the need for consistency and reliability in witness testimonies. It also stressed the significance of corroborative evidence and the impact of discrepancies on the sustainability of trial court conclusions.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 354 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal has been filed by Bhanwra Ram Jat, Village Ranasar, P.S. Bhanipura, District Churu against the judgment dated 31.5.1993 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Churu whereby the accused-appellant was found guilty u/s. 354 of the IPC and was awarded a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- as fine. For non-payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month has been awarded. It is further ordered that after the amount of fine is realised Rs. 400/- may be paid to the prosecutrix PW-1 Smt. Imrati W/o Hanumanaram.
2. According to the prosecution story Smt. Imrati alongwith her husband Hanumanaram went to Police Station, Bhanipura on 18.8.1988 and lodged and oral FIR Ex.P/1.
3. According to the FIR the incident occurred on 17.8.1988 between 5.30-6.00 p.m. when she was returning from her agricultural field her house. According to the FIR the prosecutrix had gone to her agriculture field for the protection of the crops from stray animals and while she was there her husband PW-2 Hanumanaram and his (sic her) mother in-law PW-3 Janki Devi also reached. When she was crossing through another agricultural field belonging to Jora Ram the accused came rushing towards her and after getting hold of her she was thrown on the ground. Thereafter, the accused sat on her and attempted to commit rape upon her. She offered resistance and her blouse was torn during the incident. Thereafter the accused inserted her (sic his) hand inside her vagina and blood started oozing out. There after the accused again tried to commit rape. However, because of her resistance he could not succeed. Meanwhile hearing her cries her husband Hanumanaram, mother-in-law Janki Devi and an independent witness Bhera Ram (PW- 6) appeared on the scene. They shouted and dared the accused upon which the accused took to his heels. A case u/s. 376/511 of the IPC was registered and challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshar, from where the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge at Churu.
4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Public Prosecutor then opened his case and examined PW-1 Smt. Imrati PW-2 Hanumanaram, PW-3 Janki Devi, PW-4 Bhanwarlal Sharma, PW-5 Dr. S.K. Kaushik and PW-6 Bhera Ram. The statement of the accused was then recorded u/s.313 of the Cr.P.C. His contention was that the whole story was a fabrication. He got recorded that actually the complainant side want and attempted to open a passage forcibly through his agricultural field and he received injuries from Hanumanaram and his wife Imrati and this case was falsely foisted upon him. No defence witness was examined. The learned trial Court then heard arguments and delivered the judgment on 31.5.1993. The appellant was acquitted of the charges u/s. 376/511 but was found guilty u/s. 354 of the IPC and was convicted in the aforesaid manner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have carefully examined the record of the trial Court.
6. It may be stated at the out-set that cross-cases were registered in respect of the incident and Hanumanaram and his wife Imrati were tried for offences punishable u/s. 447 & 323 of the IPC by the said trial Court. It is also not in dispute that Imrati Devi was found guilty u/s. 447 and Hanumanaram was found guilty u/s. 447 & 323 of the IPC. Both were admitted to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, they were ordered to deposit Rs. 400/- out of which Rs. 250/- were to be delivered to the injured (accused-Bhanwra Ram).
7. In this way there are two versions of the incident regarding which both the sides lodged their respective FIRs. According to the prosecution story while Smt. Imrati was going all alone the accused came running from his own field, to the field of Jora Ram and tried to rape St. Imrati there. The other version is to the effect that the fide in question belonged to the accused-Bhanwra Ram and H
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
