2013 Supreme(Raj) 1498
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Amitava Roy, J.
Sita Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1989.
Decided On : 10-07-2013
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Nitin Jain, Advocate.
For the State: Javed Choudhary, Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the charge of rape beyond all reasonable doubt, considering the evidentiary value of medical reports and witness testimonies.
Headnote:
Section 376 IPC - Rape - [Sections 342, 376 & 323 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses and the medical examination report to conclude that the charge of rape against the appellant has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The presence of human semen in the victim's wearing apparels and the appellant's dhoti was considered incriminating, but the intact hymen and absence of semen in the vaginal swab detracted from the proposition that rape had been committed. The court found the evidence of the prosecutrix not sufficient to prove the commission of an act to be construed as rape in law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC for allegedly committing rape on a six-year-old girl. The prosecution case was based on the information lodged by the victim's father, witness testimonies, and medical examination reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge of rape against the appellant had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt and set aside the impugned judgment and order, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the medical evidence, and the presence of human semen in the victim's apparels and the appellant's dhoti.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence to prove the commission of rape beyond all reasonable doubt, particularly considering the intact hymen and absence of semen in the victim's vaginal swab.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged from his bail bonds.
JUDGMENT
1. - Being convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further one month's rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.6.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 32/87. The prosecution case is traceable to an information lodged on 20.2.1987 by Ram Prasad, father of the victim Uganta with the Police Station, Sadar Tonk, alleging that on 19.2.1987 at about 4:00/5:00 p.m., while his said daughter, aged about six years was at a nearby well alongwith her younger brother, the appellant committed rape on her. The informant mentioned that having heard the cries of her daughter, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw bleeding injuries in her private parts. He mentioned about the presence of one Gopal and his wife at the site as well. According to him, he could not immediately lodge the information due to the non-availability of means of transport. On the basis of the information, the police registered a case under Sections 342, 376 & 323 IPC. When confronted with the charge, the accused denied the same and was thus made to stand trial. The prosecution thereafter examined 12 witnesses and also exhibited several documents. The appellant stood by his denial of the charge in course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he declined to adduce any evidence in defence. On the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order, he was convicted and sentenced as above.
2. Before weighing the arguments advanced, it would be appropriate to record the evidence of the relevant witnesses in short.
3. PW-1, the informant stated that on the date of the occurrence, while he and his wife were working on the field, their daughter Uganti aged about 6/7 years alongwith her younger brother, was at a nearby well. It was about 4:00/5:00 p.m. in the evening. The witness stated that he on hearing the cries of his daughter, went near the well and saw the appellant committing rape on her. He mentioned that then, his wife also reached the spot followed by Gopal. He proved the FIR. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he found his daughter lying about a feet away from the well. He also stated that at the time of the incident, his wife was about 15 feet away from the place of occurrence.
4. PW-3 Dr.G.C.Jain testified that on 20.2.1987, he had medically examined the victim. He proved the report Ex.P-3 and stated to have detected abrasions on her body. He deposed further that on local examination, blood stains on her wearing apparels over both labia major a were detected, and inner aspects of both thighs were found present. A laceration on her left vaginal wall was also detected. He stated that though the hymen of the victim was intact, some bleeding was present. That her vaginal swab was taken, was mentioned by him. The witness opined that at the relevant point of time, the victim was aged 6 to 7 years, and that, rape had been committed on her.
5. PW-5 Choti, mother of the victim stated that at the time of the incident, she was working on the field about 2 feet away from the place of occurrence, where she was found lying when she reached there. She stated that the appellant had thrown her on the ground and on this as she cried out, the witness rushed to the site. She however, admitted of not having seen the actual act of sexual intercourse. She stated to have seen bleeding from the private parts of her daughter.
6. PW-6 Gopal is not an eye witness to the incident, though he had reached the place of occurrence after the alleged act.
7. The FSL report Ex.P-6 discloses that human semen was detected on the dhoti of Sita Ram and ghaghra of the victim, but no semen was however, detected in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix.
8. The testimony of the victim was recorded by the learned trial court, after being satisfied that she had the maturity of understanding the qu
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
