Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Dhale Ram - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 291 of 2014
Decided On : 01-04-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocates General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt leads to acquittal.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376 and 506 - Acquittal of respondent for rape and criminal intimidation - The State appealed against the acquittal, arguing that the trial court's findings were perverse. The court noted the prosecutrix's delayed reporting of the incident, lack of medical evidence supporting the prosecution, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The trial court's reasons for acquittal were upheld, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 11, 27, 30)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must lead to acquittal. (Paras 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the respondent raped her in her home while her husband was away. The incident was reported four days later, and the respondent was acquitted due to lack of evidence. (Paras 2, 11)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the prosecutrix's testimony unreliable, the medical evidence inconclusive, and the delay in reporting significant. (Paras 27, 30)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the delay in reporting the incident, and the adequacy of the evidence presented. (Paras 27, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's findings, stating that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented. (Paras 28, 30)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), the State has filed the instant appeal.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 22.5.2012 around 2:15 p.m. at place Tandla, Tehsil and District Kullu, in absence of the husband, who had gone to Kullu in connection with work and the children of the prosecutrix, who were in school, the respondent came to the house of the prosecutrix. After asking the respondent to sit outside the house, the prosecutrix went inside the room to bring glass of water to the respondent and the moment she entered inside the room, the respondent also followed her inside the room and after bolting the room from inside, he caught hold the prosecutrix and brought her to the bed and asked the prosecutrix that in case, she raised alarm he would kill her. The respondent opened the salwar of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. After committing the offence, the respondent fled away from the spot, however, left his mobile inside. While leaving the place of occurrence, the respondent again threatened the prosecutrix that in case she disclosed about the occurrence to any person, then, he would kill her. Due to the fear, the prosecutrix did not disclose about the occurrence to any member of her family. It was after seeing the prosecutrix under stress, her husband asked the prosecutrix about the reason thereof and she disclosed about the occurrence to her husband as well as to her Jeth Aile Ram (brother-in-law). Only thereafter, the matter was reported by the prosecutrix to the police and FIR Ext.PW-1/A came to be registered against the respondent.
3. The case was Investigated by SI Gambhir Chand, who moved an application Ext.PW-9/A for getting the prosecutrix medically examined and consequently, she was medically examined by PW-9 Dr. Neeru Pandit Kapoor and the MLR of the prosecutrix was obtained. PW-9 also preserved four vaginal smear slides of the prosecutrix and sealed the same and handed over to the police for chemical examination.
4. On 28.5.2012, upon the identification of the prosecutrix, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map Ext.PW-13/A. During investigation, the prosecutrix produced mobile phone of the respondent, which was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/C and the same was sealed in a parcel. On the same day, the Investigator also took bed sheet Ext.P-3 and Salwar Ext. P-4 into possession through recovery memo Ext. PW-1/B that were produced by the prosecutrix. The photography and videography of the spot was also conducted vide photographs Ext. PA-1 to Ext. PA-10 and CD Ext. PA-11.
5. On 02.06.2012, the respondent was arrested and thereafter the Investigator moved an application Ext.PW-2/A before the Medical Officer for conducting the medical examination of the respondent and the respondent was medically examined by PW-2 Dr. Rakesh Thakur, who found the respondent to be fit to perform sexual act and issued MLR Ext. PW-2/B.
6. The investigator also deposited the sealed parcel of case property with the MHC duly sealed with seal 'T' who sent the same to the chemical examiner and also obtained the DNA profile Ext.PW-13/B and reports Ext.PW-13/C and Ext.PW- 13/E, respectively. The sample of seal ‘T’ was obtained on a piece of cloth as Ext.PW-13/D.
7. The Investigator also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also obtained copies of Malkhana register and R.C. The Investigator also signed FTA cards of both the respondent as well as the prosecutrix Ext.PW-13/F and Ext.PW-13/G, respectively. He also obtained e-mail sent from S.P office to Reliance Communications and reply to the e-mail Ext.PW-5/A of phone No.98178-12137 issued to respondent and also collected copy of receipt Ext.PW- 7/A from PW-7 Aman Deep, who sold the mobile to the respondent.
8. After completion of the investigation, final report was prese
