The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offenses charged, and that the evidence must be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 366, 376, 379 IPC - ABDUCTION, RAPE, THEFT - AGE OF VICTIM - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 27 - INFORMATION TO POLICE - RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:

The accused-appellants were convicted of abducting, raping, and stealing from a young woman named Smt. Kailashi. The prosecution alleged that the accused abducted Kailashi on January 5, 1972, and kept her captive for over a month, during which time she was repeatedly raped. The accused were arrested and charged with offenses under Sections 366, 376, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had abducted or kidnapped Kailashi. The court also found that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that Kailashi was under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offenses. The court further found that the accused Gyana could not be convicted of theft under Section 379 IPC based solely on the recovery of a silver bangle from his possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had abducted or kidnapped Kailashi? 2. Whether there was satisfactory evidence to establish that Kailashi was under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offenses? 3. Whether the accused Gyana could be convicted of theft under Section 379 IPC based solely on the recovery of a silver bangle from his possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had abducted or kidnapped Kailashi. The court noted that there were several inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and that the evidence did not support the prosecution's claim that Kailashi had been abducted or kidnapped on January 5, 1972. 2. The court held that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that Kailashi was under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offenses. The court noted that Kailashi's own testimony was inconsistent with her claim that she was under 18, and that the medical evidence was inconclusive. 3. The court held that the accused Gyana could not be convicted of theft under Section 379 IPC based solely on the recovery of a silver bangle from his possession. The court noted that there was no evidence that Gyana had stolen the bangle, and that the bangle could have been given to him by Kailashi.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of the accused, and acquitted them of all charges.

JUDGMENT

1. - The above named accused-appellants and one more Bhonria S/o Birdha preferred an appeal to this Court against their conviction under the various offences as given below. After filing of the appeal Bhonria S/o Birdha died and vide order sheet dated 8.4.74.. it was ordered that his name should be struck off from the array of the appellants.

1.	Bhonria S/o Heera)	U/s. 366 IPC	2 years rigorous imprisonment.
2.	Rampal S/o Dhanna )
3.	Prasada S/o Bhonria	U/s. 366 IPC	2 years rigorous imprisonment.
		U/s 376 IPC	3 years rigorous imprisonment,
4.	Gyana S/o Jaichand	U/s 366 IPC	2 years rigorous imprisonment.
		U/s 376 IPC	3 years rigorous imprisonment.
		U/s 379 IPC	6 month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in default further one months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The facts of the case on which the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, are as follows :

Prashada son of Asharam Meena is the husband of Smt. Kailashi (PW3). They were both residing in village Bharoti P. S. Malarna Dunger. It is alleged that on January 4th or 5th of 1972 in the evening the accused persons Prashada, Bhonria, Rampal and another Bhonria (since dead) came to village Bharoti and in the absence of Prashada (PW 8) they took away Smt. Kailashi by force. At that time, Kailashi was wearing silver ornaments. A report (Ex. P. 4) of the incident was lodged on 7-1-78 before the Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur, who endorsed it to S. H. O., P. S. Malerna Danger for compliance and report. The same was received in P. S. Malerna on 10-1-72 where a case No. 2 under Sections 366 and 379 IPC was registered and the investigation started. On January 25, 1972 Kailashi (PW 3) was recovered from Muslim Musafirkhana, Jaipur, where she was staying alongwith accused Gyana. She was medically examined by Dr. Narendra Singh Chohan (PW 11) and x-ray for occification of bones was also taken and the opinion of the doctors is that she was aged in between 14 to 16 years on the date of examination.

3. Accused Gyana is alleged to have given information (Ex. P. 6) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 26-1-72 to Shri Gopal Singh for getting recovered one bangle of silver and consequent to the information vide Ex. P. 7 he got recovered one bangle of silver, which is said to be of Smt. Kailashi (PW 3). A charge-sheet was filed against the accused and they were committed to the Court of Sessions where after triai the accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

4. Arguments of the learned Advocate for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor have been heard and the record of the case has been perused.

5. The arguments of the learned Advocate for the appellants are two fold. Firstly, it is submitted that the charge against the accused persons is that they abducted or kidnapped Smt. Kailashi on 5-1-72. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the occurrence and the case of the prosecution is rendered highly doubtful.

6. The second argument is that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the age of Smt. Kailashi is below 18 years and from the evidence on record it can be said that she went of her own accord and was not abducted or kidnapped by any of the accused persons. Elucidating his argument on the first point, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the occurrence has not been proved to have taken place on 5-1-72. He has taken me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which shall be discussed presently.

7. Smt. Kailashi (PW 3) has deposed that she was taken by the accused persons to Sahsa village where she was kept by accused Prashada in a room under the lock for about a month. There Prashada committed sexual in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1978 Supreme(Raj) 396

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTM.B.Sharma, J.Prashada & Others - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 111/74 of 1974 against the judgment dated 13.2.74 of Shri Ramcharan Lal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City Sessions Case No. 35 of 1973.Decided On : 13-12-1978

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offenses charged, and that the evidence must be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.B.Sharma, J.
Prashada & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 111/74 of 1974 against the judgment dated 13.2.74 of Shri Ramcharan Lal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City Sessions Case No. 35 of 1973.
Decided On : 13-12-1978