Back
1993 Supreme(All) 286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. S. N. TRIPATHI
OMI ALIAS OM PRAKASH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. M. B. A. . Of 1993
Decided On : 05/14/1993
M.C.AGRAWAL
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence, credibility of witness testimony, and adherence to procedural and evidentiary rules.
Headnote:
RAPE - Criminal Law - Section 376, Section 363, IPC - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the accused for charges under Section 376 and Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzes the medical evidence, the credibility of the victim's testimony, and the conduct of the accused. The court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquits the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for charges under Section 376 and Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's case that he abducted and raped a minor girl. The victim's father lodged an FIR alleging that the accused had enticed away his daughter. Medical examination of the victim revealed old tears in the hymen and signs of sexual activity. The accused denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. It highlighted discrepancies in the victim's testimony, inconsistencies in the FIR, and lack of corroborating evidence. The court also criticized the trial judge's lack of understanding of criminal law and evidence appreciation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the reliability of medical evidence, the conduct of the accused, and the procedural irregularities in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It scrutinized the medical evidence and the victim's testimony, highlighting inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court also criticized the trial judge's handling of the case and the compound nature of questions posed to the accused.
Final Decision: The accused was acquitted, and the judgment and order of the trial court were set aside. The court directed the accused's release from jail unless required in another case. The court also instructed the registry to communicate its observations to the trial judge.
( 1 ) OM Prakash alias Omi has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, vide his judgment dated 7-5-90. He was sentenced to undergo 7 years R. I. on the charge under Section 376, I. P. C. He was also held guilty on the charge under Section 363, I. P. C. under which he was sentenced to undergo 5 years R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution case started on the basis of written F. I. R. lodged by Banarasi Das, P. W. 2 at P. S. Kotwali Pithoragarh, on 23-1-89 at 15. 40 P. M. He alleged that he originally hails from Rajasthan but was working at the premises of the contractor as a labourer. His family including his minor sons and minor daughter Km. Subhawati alias Babi, also resides with him. His wife also worked with him. The male children including the daughter Km. Subhawati alias Babi were left at home. Ratan Lal a distant relation of the complainant also resided nearby. His brother-in-law was accused Omi alias Om Prakash. He had been residing with Ratan Lal for some time. He also visited the house of the complainant. On 21-8-89 the accused Om Prakash alias Omi came to the house of the complainant, when the complainant and his wife were away. He by pretext sent the complainants minor sons towards the cattle and enticed away Km. Subhawati. When the complainants son Raj Kumar returned, he did not find Km. Subhawati aged about 10, 12 years. He immediately informed the complainant. The complainant started searching for his daughter but he could not succeed. Some people told him that they had seen the accused taking away Km. Subhawati with him at about 10 A. M. on that date. The complainant also contacted Ratan Lal, but they did not give any suitable reply. They asked him not to be worried and said that in case she had gone with the accused, she would return. For nearly a week the complainants search for his daughter as well as the accused could not bring any result. Then he lodged this report raising an accusing finger towards Ratan Lal and his wife and believing that they were in collusion with the accused.
( 2 ) IT transpires from evidence that the accused had taken Km. Subhawati alias Baby to Rajasthan, where he retained her for 3-4 days. He committed rape on her there and was bringing back Km. Subhawati to the place from where she was allegedly enticed away, then he was arrested by the police on 4-2-89.
( 3 ) KM. Subhawati was sent for medical examination on 4-2-89, where she was examined by lady Doctor Smt. Usha Upreti, P. W. 4 on 4-2-89. She prepared the following report :- m 11. An old scar 1 cm below from navel about 1/2 cm in length. On Examination - Auxillary hair very scanty just started growing. Breasts - Very small, just started developing nipples small. Abdomen soft - No external mark of injury etc. On Examination of her Private Part pubic hairs started growing few in numbers and brown in colour. Labia/minora/ developing making apart of labia minora, hymen seen torn. There was old irregular torn, edges smooth, healthy. No bleeding no laceration. 1. Vaginal smear from posterior parts sent for spermatozoa examination-4-2-89 / 9-2-89. Report received from B. D. Pandey Hospital according to Pathologist Smear negative for spermatozoa. Per vaginal Examination-Vagina admits more than one finger loose vaginal canal smooth 2. Girl sent to B. D. Pandey Hospital for X-ray of wrist joints and elbow joint-6-2-89. Perineum healthy, no tear no laceration no bleeding, no mark of injury x-ray report received on 8-2-89. Lateral epicondyle of humerus bone has not fused with capitulums it appears at the age of 10 years of age between 10 to 12 yrs. The age of girl is between 10 to 12 yrs. Opinion : 1. Age of girl according to Radiologist about 10 to 12 yrs. 2. The girl might be used to sexual inter course (because vaginal examination shows vagina more than one finger loose P/v done without any resistance hymen torn but there was no fresh sign of sexual intercourse, no lacera
