IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony must be corroborated by credible evidence, and any significant contradictions or lack of medical evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.02.1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.53/1992 (20/90) by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo five yeas’ R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months’ R.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.1989, Mst. ‘P’ submitted a report at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, inter-alia alleging therein that her family members are traditional story-tellers. On 25.11.1989, she along with family members went to Khudera Chota for story-telling. Late at night, at about 3 AM, when she woke up for answering the call of nature, the accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh caught hold of her and committed rape upon her. On raising hue and cry, some people came to her rescue, upon which, the accused-appellant fled away. Counsel further argued that the medical evidence also contradicts the prosecutrix’s account, which claims that a rape was committed for two-three hours. Despite this the trial Judge rejected the prosecutrix’s account and concluded that the rape was committed.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the FIR against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Section 376 of IPC was framed by the trial court against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve prosecution witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 27.02.1993 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC as mentioned earlier.

6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a false case has been lodged against the appellant and there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of prosecutrix ‘P’ (PW.1) so also in the statements of other witnesses, viz., Bidami (PW.2), Sharwan (PW.3), Mala Ram (PW.4), Kumbha Ram (PW.5). Further, witness Deepa Ram (PW- 10) has also been declared hostile. Counsel submits that during cross-examination, prosecutrix mentioned that for about 2-3 hours, the appellant kept his hand on her mouth and committed rape with her, which is implausible. Counsel further submits that according to the FIR, there is over-writing on the name of accused-appellant, thus, the identity of the accused-appellant has not been known and the accused-appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. The statement of Dr. Bhanwar Lal has been recorded as (PW.6) before the trial court and in his statement, he mentioned that no injury was found on the body (including private parts) of the prosecutrix and also no fresh discharge was found on her body. According to statement of Anup Singh (PW.9), he deposited the samples before the FSL, Jaipur and during cross-examination, he admitted that no seal was put on the articles, thus, the samples were not in an intact position, till they reached for FSL. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same lacks, amongst other, appreciation of the evidence available on record, for the purpose of charging and convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC in particular.

7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for