Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ranjit Singh, J.
Ramesh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1994,
Decided On : APRIL 5, 2006
rape - Indian Penal Code - Section 376, Section 511 - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, highlighting discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and the introduction of material improvements in her testimony. The court also considered the joint photograph of the appellant with the prosecutrix and the explanation provided by the defense. The judgment emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution and the need to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit rape. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant attempted to molest and rape her, leading to her setting herself on fire. The prosecution presented evidence, and the appellant denied the allegations, claiming past physical relations and a loan dispute with the prosecutrix.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statement, including material improvements and the introduction of new details during her testimony. The court also considered the joint photograph of the appellant with the prosecutrix and the explanation provided by the defense. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the introduction of material improvements, and the explanation provided by the defense regarding the joint photograph and the alleged past physical relations and loan dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the need for the defense's explanation to cast doubt on the prosecution's story, ultimately leading to the benefit of doubt accruing to the appellant and his acquittal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, and acquitted the appellant of the charge, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Ranjit Singh, J.
1. Appellant-Ramesh is in appeal against the order of his conviction recorded under Section 376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code with the allegation that he had attempted to commit offence of rape of Smt. Santosh wife of Shri Krishan.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as is revealed from the statement of prosecutrix-Santosh wife of Shri Krishan (PW-7) is that on 27.7.1992, she was alone present in her house when the accused Ramesh came to the house and tried to molest her. PW-7 states that she raised noise and called her brother-in- law (Jeth). Hearing this, accused Ramesh went away leaving the spot. PW-7 has further stated that after some time, she went to the well to fetch water where accused Ramesh again came to her from Peepal side. As per PW-7, there the accused grappled with her, threw her on the ground and laid on her. She has also mentioned that the accused broke open the string of her Salvar, removed his Dhoti and kept the same on his shoulder and made an attempt to commit the offence of rape on her. She has claimed that in order to save her honour, she kicked the accused with her legs and did not allow penetration. Her version then reveals that Kamla and Ram Pyari had reached the spot and seeing these two ladies, the accused fled away from the spot. PW-7 states that she felt so insulted that after coming to her house, she poured kerosene oil on her person and set herself on fire. She, however, was saved by one Kartar (not examined) and others, who were neighbourers of PW-7. He also took her to Civil Hospital, Rohtak. There she had narrated the facts to the Doctor attending on her, who recorded her statement and obtained her thumb impression thereon. On the basis of a Ruqa sent by the Doctor, Police had reached the hospital and recorded FIR. Investigation followed leading to the charge being preferred against the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511, IPC.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The accused was confronted with the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. While being examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the evidence put to him and in his defence stated that Santosh PW-7 was having physical relations with him. The accused also stated that Smt. Santosh used to take petty loans from him off and on and as such loan amount accumulated to a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. As per the accused, Santosh promised to pay back the said amount by 26.7.1992. When she failed to do so and the accused happened to meet her on 27.7.1992 on way to the village pond, some verbal altercation took place between them when the accused slapped her. This incident was reported to Panchayat. There, the accused showed his joint photograph with Santosh (PW-7). Santosh felt humiliated upon this. After seeing the photograph, the father-in-law of PW-7 told her to commit suicide or leave the house for ever. It is on account of this humiliation that the prosecutrix set herself on fire leading to her hospitalisation.
4. In support of his stand, the accused had examined one witness, namely, Ram Kumar, and rested his case at that.
5. Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, after appreciating the evidence, found that the prosecution was able to establish the charge against the accused and after finding him guilty, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three and half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It was further directed that in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for six months. It is admitted by counsels for the parties that by now the accused has undergone 18 months of actual sentence.
6. Shri J.S. Bedi, counsel for the appellant, after drawing attention of the court to the evidence of Santosh, PW-7, has submitted that the prosecutrix is not worthy of reliance as there are serious discrepancies in her statement which would render it unsafe to rely on her version. He has further submitted
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
