IMPORTANT POINT
The need for testimonies of sterling quality to convict the accused in a sexual offence case and the principle of scrutinizing the evidence of the victim with the same yardstick as that of any other witness.

ORDER :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) :

The informant has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 29th June 2022 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.292 of 2019 in favour of Avinash Kumar and Shantanu Kumar Sharma.

2. Chas PS Case No.113 of 2019 was lodged on 9th June 2019 on the basis of written report of “X” given to the Officer-in-Charge of Chas PS on 8th June 2019.

3. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against both the accused persons for committing the offence under sections 376, 354-D, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. During the trial to support the aforesaid charges the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses out of whom the daughter of prosecutrix is PW1.

5. The learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence of the doctor who is PW3 and the prosecutrix who is PW4, in the following manners:

10. Heard the both sides and perused the record, evidences and material on record and from perusal, it appears that in this case, the above six P.W's have been examined, including the prosecutrix, her daughter, the Doctor and the I.O., but, none of them have fully supported the case of prosecution, as alleged and charged rather given contradictory evidences, on several points.

On careful perusal of testimony of P.W.4, who is the informant/prosecutrix, herself stated in para-2 of her cross that the house in which she lived in the name of her grand father-in-law and she is living in that house with her family members from year, 2012. Her father-in-law lived at Marafari with families and there are 20-22 members in her family.

In para-3, she stated that she has not made a witness to any member of her family. In para-4, she stated that she has no dispute with her father-in-law regarding residing at her that home. In para-5, she stated that on 07.11.2017, she had joined as agent in Sahara India and her agent Code No. is 131520982 and she is agent of Jodhadih Branch.

In para-13, she stated that regarding that occurrence, she had not stated to any female of the locality. In para-19, she deposed that on 19.11.2018, she had filed a complain case vide C.P. Case No. 1249/2018 in which Shantanu Sharma was made witness and he has adduced in her favour.

In para-30, she stated that when Shantanu was going after the occurrence, then she not raise any alarm.

In para-39, she stated that she had not complained against Avinash to any officer regarding commission of molest by him. In para-40, she stated that C.P. Case No. 1249/2018 was filed against Amit Kumar and Mahila Officer-in-Charge Sangeeta.

P.W.6, in his cross, para-12, stated that he has not taken the statement of the people of the locality of the place of occurrence. In para-14, he deposed that he not taken statement of any family members and relative of the informant. In para-15, stated that the informant and his daughter Khusi Kumari has not stated the time of the occurrence during their statement. para-20, he stated that the victim had not produced any paper regarding her treatment. In para-22, he stated that no any descriptions was given to him by the victim regarding showing her obscene post by the accused. In para-31, he stated that he has not taken the defence statement of accused Avinash Kumar.

It appears that that the Doctor concerned i.e. P.W. 3 also not found any sign of the recent sexual intercourse and there were no sign of injuries in & around the perineum, which also falsify the allegation of the informant and the above version of the above main witnesses, clearly create doubt regarding the above allegation and charges against the above accused persons.

It appears that she neither raise any objection and shouted at the place of occurrence or the nearby, so that, the accused may be caught and about the incident, she also not stated or informed to her family members and the members of her maikey side and nor they were made witness and nor she produce them in the Court, in her support, which clearly shows her doubtful conduct because any such type of information, if any