Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Ajit Singh
Rajpal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-S-847-SB-2005 and CRA-S-2122-SB-2003 (O&M)
Decided on : July 16, 2013
Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocates for the appellant
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Haryana.
Headnote:
Rape - Section 376(2)(g) IPC, Section 506 IPC - [Section 376(2)(g), Section 506 IPC] - The court discussed the principles of joint liability under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and emphasized the need for evidence of completed act of rape by at least one of the accused. It highlighted the importance of medical evidence to support the prosecutrix's statement and the requirement for some injuries on the body in cases of forcible sexual intercourse. The court also referenced the opinion of medical experts and previous case law to emphasize the need for resistance from the victim in cases of alleged rape.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted of rape and sentenced to imprisonment. The prosecutrix alleged that she was raped by two men in a field, but the court found serious infirmities in the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both the accused.
Issues: Improbability of the prosecutrix's story, lack of resistance, delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the prosecution case, and absence of medical evidence supporting the rape allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence of completed act of rape, medical evidence to support the prosecutrix's statement, and the requirement for injuries on the body in cases of forcible sexual intercourse.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were accepted, and the accused were acquitted and ordered to be released.
Anita Chaudhry, J.
This order shall dispose of two criminal appeals bearing No. CRA-S-2122-SB of 2003 and CRA-S-847-SB of 2005 as both arise out of the same judgment. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CRA-S-2122-SB-2003.
Accused Ajit Singh and Rajpal Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 506 IPC.
A written complaint Ex.PB was given by the prosecutrix to the police at 4.50 p.m. on 23.01.2002, wherein she disclosed that she had gone to the fields owned by Leela Singh to collect fodder for the cattle. Ajit Singh S/o Leela Singh and Rajpal Singh came to the fields and caught hold of her and she was thrown on the ground and she fell over the sarson crop. Then Rajpal Singh committed rape upon her while Ajit Singh was standing a little bit away. Thereafter, Ajit Singh committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix raised noise and her brother-in-law Anil Kumar and his wife Kunti, who were working in the nearby fields came running. Both the culprits managed to escape. The matter was reported to the police on the next day. It was disclosed by the prosecutrix that a Panchayat was held but the matter could not be resolved. FIR Ex.PB/1 was registered and the special report reached to the Magistrate at 8.00 p.m. on 24.01.2002. The police collected the broken bangles and black underwear from the spot. Investigation was completed and police lodged a report against both the accused under Sections 376(2)(g) and Section 506 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined 17 witnesses i.e. the prosecutrix, PW3 Anil Kumar brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, besides the medical officer. Dr. Neelam Thapar, PW16 had examined the prosecutrix on 25.01.2012 and had found the following injuries on her person:
" Injuries: 1. Two abrasion 0.5 cm. x 0.1 cm. and other 2 cm. below it of 0.5 x 0.1 cm. just below the left eye and one abrasion present on the left nostril of 0.3x0.1 cm. Complaints of pain in right knee joint. Advised orthopaedic Surgeon opinion. Complaints of body ache. There is no difficulty in micturition and defaecation. Local examination: Perspeculum examination cervix and vagina healthy. On per vaginum examination cervix downwards uterus ante verted normal size firm mobile bilateral fornices clear. No external mark of injury present on the external genitalia vagina admitting two fingers easily."
The medical officer after going through the FSL had given her opinion that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. The report reads as under:
“1.(i) Human semen mixed with blood was detected on Ex.1a (underwear).
(ii) Blood was detected on Ex1b (Piece of cloth). However, semen could not be detected on this exhibit.
2. (i) Blood could not be detected on the Ex2a (broken glass bangles) and Ex2c handkerchief.
(ii) Ex2b (hair) were identified as human hairs. 3.
i) Human semen was detected on Ex.3a (petticoat). Traces of blood were also detected on this exhibit.
(ii) Human semen mixed with blood was detected on Ex3b (underwear) and Ex3b (swab).
4. Neither blood nor semen could be detected on Ex3c (hair).
5. Blood was detected on Ex4 (blood).
The serological analysis was carried out on the human semen but the result was inconclusive.”
Accused Ajit Singh and Rajpal Singh in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication and offered to produce defence.
The accused had examined Manku and Rohtash as their defence witnesses.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the story weaved by the prosecutrix appears to be improbable from the very beginning as both m
