Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Puneet Gupta, J.
Jarnail Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State of J&K - Respondent
CRA No. 49/2016 and IA No. 1/2016
Decided On : 29-12-2020
For the Appellant :O.P. Thakur and R.K.S. Thakur, Advocates
For the Respondents: Aseem Sawhney, AAG
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 156(3) - Offence of Rape - Appellant on being convicted for commission of offence under Section 376 RPC by court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine - Appellant is further directed to undergo imprisonment for six months in case of default in payment of fine - Complainant-prosecutrix submitted complaint before Judicial Magistrate, against appellant-convict and the complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station FIR under Section 376 RPC came to be registered with Police Station - Complaint is exhibited and F.I.R. is exhibited - Allegation against appellant is that the appellant is a teacher in a school and appellant had called prosecutrix who was student of 8th class of Middle School, to collect books from residence of appellant after school time as books were required to be distributed to students - Accused is stated to have committed rape upon her when prosecutrix visited house of the accused - Prosecution examined number of witnesses in support of its case - Statements of witnesses have been detailed in judgment of the trial court and need not be set out again in the appeal and shall be referred to wherever required during discussion - Whether appellant was asked by the accused to collect the books from his residence as occurrence is only factor which is required to be seen in the present case – Held, court is of the view that may not have assumed significance but for fact that the circumstances that have appeared in the case do call out for attention of court on the point under discussion - In statement recorded before the court victim does not speak a word that accused had called victim to visit his house - PW, mother of victim, has deposed in court that her daughter was not keeping well for the last two/four days and had not visited the school four days prior to occurrence - Contradictory statements by the witnesses do not inspire confidence in court and only makes prosecution case doubtful - Authorities produced by the both the sides need not be cited just for the sake of piling of papers when the factual aspects that come on record are by themselves sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case - Prosecution case as whole is required to be assessed and analyzed before recording guilt or innocence of the accused - In view of the discussion made above, Court is of view that prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellant-accused beyond shadow of doubt - Appeal is allowed and judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside - Appellant-convict is acquitted of charge framed against him under section 376 RPC and to be released forthwith - Record of the trial court be sent back – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Puneet Gupta, J.
1. The appellant-Jarnail Singh on being convicted for the commission of offence under Section 376 RPC by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The appellant is further directed to undergo imprisonment for six months in case of default in the payment of fine.
2. The complainant-prosecutrix submitted complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Mahore on 01.07.2010 against the appellant-convict and the complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to SHO Police Station, Mahore. FIR No. 77/2010 under Section 376 RPC came to be registered with Police Station, Mahore on 01.7.2010 at about 7.15 p.m. The complaint is exhibited as EXPW-G and the F.I.R. is exhibited as EXTP-AZ. The allegation against the appellant is that the appellant is a teacher in a school and on 26.06.2010 the appellant had called the prosecutrix who was the student of 8th class of Middle School, Shikari to collect books from the residence of the appellant after the school time as the books were required to be distributed to the students. The accused is stated to have committed rape upon her when the prosecutrix visited the house of the accused. The investigations led to filing of the charge sheet which ultimately resulted into the conviction of the appellant by the learned trial court. The prosecution examined number of witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the witnesses have been detailed in the judgment of the trial court and need not be set out again in the appeal and shall be referred to wherever required during discussion.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complaint is belated one with a design to rope in the appellant falsely coupled with the aspect that the person who was revealed of the occurrence by the victim in the first instance is not proved credibly and has material bearing in the case as different versions have come up qua the contents of the complaint.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has strenuously argued that the complaint or F.I.R. is not the encyclopedia of the events that precede it nor is there any requirement that all the facts are bound to be stated in the complaint or F.I.R. by the complainant and if some of the facts have not been mentioned that does not dent the case of the prosecution on that score. The evidence regarding the initial revelation of the incident as made out from the statements of the witnesses is consistent one without any major contradictions.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of the court towards the contents of the complaint lodged by the complainant-prosecutrix and which are admitted by the prosecutrix to be correct one. As per the complaint, which resulted into registration of the F.I.R., the appellant had on 26.06.2010 asked the prosecutrix, aged about 13/14, studying in Middle School, Shikari, to visit his house as the books are to be distributed to the students. The prosecutrix was asked to visit the house after the school hours. The complainant visited the house of the accused who was alone in his house at that time. The accused closed the door when the prosecutrix visited the house and the accused forced the victim on the floor of the house, untied the salwar and committed rape upon the complainant. The complainant was also threatened that in case she revealed the incident she will be ousted from the school. The reason for filing the complaint on 01.07.2010 as given in the complaint is that the prosecutrix felt ashamed and did not reveal the incident to anyone. The complainant did not attend the school for two days. It was only on 30.06.2010 that the complainant informed her mother of the whole incident when mother asked the reason for her distress and thereafter the complaint is being filed against the appellant. As per the complaint, the first person to wh
