Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, AT SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol And Justice P.S. Rana, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Vs.
Ravi Kant son of Surya Kant & others - Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 732 of 2008
Decided On : 22-04-2016
For the Appellant:Mr. V.S. Chauhan Additional Advocate General with Mr.
Kush Sharma Deputy Advocate General and Mr.J.S.Guleria Assistant Advocate General.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Chitkara Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the principle that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg. It also highlights the importance of corroboration of testimonies in cases involving serious allegations.
Headnote:
Rape - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 452, 376, 511, 354, 323 - The judgment discusses the testimonies of the prosecutrix and medical evidence, highlighting the contradiction between them. The court found that the medical evidence did not corroborate the testimonies of the prosecutrix, leading to doubt in the court's mind. The court also emphasized the principle that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg. The judgment ultimately dismissed the appeal, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of rape, molestation, and beatings against the accused persons, who were acquitted by the trial court. The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of the prosecutrix and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of the prosecutrix were not corroborated by medical evidence, creating doubt in the court's mind. The court emphasized the principle that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence, and whether the prosecution's case could stand on its own without sufficient corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the principle that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg. It also highlighted the importance of considering the entire evidence on record and the need for corroboration of testimonies in cases involving serious allegations.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the State of HP was dismissed, and the benefit of doubt was given to the accused persons. The records of the trial court, along with a certified copy of the judgment, were ordered to be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
P.S.Rana, J.
Present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehr in sessions trial No. 16 of 2005 title State of H.P. versus Ravi Kant and another.
Brief facts of the case.
2. It is alleged by prosecution that on 12.5.2004 at 1.30 AM night at Ketra (Sangla) accused persons in furtherance of common intention trespassed into the house of prosecutrix and committed rape upon the prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that accused persons in furtherance of common intention also attempted to commit rape upon another prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that at the same time date and place accused persons in furtherance of common intention outraged the modesty of prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that accused persons in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused beatings to both prosecutrix and caused simple hurt to both prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext.PW1/A was recorded and both prosecutrix identified accused persons and photographs Ext.PW19/A-1 to Ext.PW19/A-5 also obtained and site plan Ext.PW20/A also prepared. It is alleged by prosecution that one cap Ext.P2 also recovered at the spot and took into possession vide seizure memo. It is alleged by prosecution that MLC of co-accused persons namely Ravi Kant, Shiv Dev and Raj Kumar and MLC of both prosecutrix obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that co-accused Shiv Dev medically examined by PW5 Dr. Atul Sood and as per MLC Ext.PW5/A accused was found capable of performing sexual intercourse and sample of semen of accused took into possession by medical officer and handed over to investigating agency. It is alleged by prosecution that PW6 Dr. Ashish conducted medico legal examination of prosecutrix and found six injuries upon body of prosecutrix in the shape of abrasions,bruise and nature of injuries were simple in nature. It is alleged by prosecution that MLC of prosecutrix is Ext.PW6/A. It is alleged by prosecution that PW6 Dr. Ashish also conducted medical examination of co-accused Ravi Kant and he issued MLC Ext.PW6/B and accused was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. It is alleged by prosecution that PW7 Dr. Parveen Singh conducted medico legal examination of accused Raj Kumar and issued MLC Ext.PW7/A. It is alleged by prosecution that disclosure statement of co-accused Shiv Dev Ext.PW8/A under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act recorded and disclosure statement of co-accused Raj Kumar Ext.PW2/A was also recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It is alleged by prosecution that disclosure statement of co-accused Ravi Kant under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act Ext.PW17/A was also recorded. It is alleged by prosecution that chemical analyst reports Ext.PA and Ext.PB also obtained.
3. Charge framed by learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr against accused persons under Sections 452 read with section 34 IPC, 376 read with section 34 IPC and under section 376 IPC read with section 511 IPC, 354 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on dated 28.4.2007. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined twenty oral witnesses in support of its case and also tendered documentary evidence.
5. Learned trial Court acquitted all accused persons. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned trial Court State of H.P. filed present appeal.
6. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and also perused the entire record carefully.
7. Following points arises for determination in the present appeal:-
Point No. 1
Whether judgment of learned Trial Court is perverse and based upon non appreciation of oral and documentary evidence properly as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
Point No. 2
Final Order.
8.Findings on point No.1 with reasons.
8.1. PW1 prosecutrix aged 50 years has stated that she lived in vill
