Back
2007 Supreme(All) 2582
2010 (69) ACC 170
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
DHARAM VEER, J.
RAM BAHADUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. – Opposite Party
Criminal Appeal No. 2034 of 2001
Decided on : October 9, 2007
Counsel for the Appellant : L.K. Tiwari.
Counsel for the State : Harish Pujari, A.G.A.
The prosecution must establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented must be cogent, reliable, and in tune with probabilities.
Headnote:
Rape - Consent - 366, 376 IPC - The court discussed the evidence and circumstances of the case and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of rape and kidnapping against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Shobha, alleged that the appellant took her with him and committed rape without her consent. However, the appellant argued that the victim went with him to Delhi with her own consent and lived there for 20 days before returning to Dehradun.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not establish the offence of rape and kidnapping against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the victim went with the appellant willingly or was taken forcibly, and whether the appellant committed the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the victim's conduct, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the lack of corroborating witnesses to conclude that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence made against the appellant.
DHARAM VEER, J.-This criminal appeal has been preferred under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as (I.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 18.6.1986 passed by Additional. Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1985, State v. Ram Bahadur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Ram Bahadur under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC and awarded sentence of five years' RI. under section 366 I.P.C. and seven years' RI. under section 376 I.P.C and it has been directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant Ram Singh lodged an F.I.R at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun on 8.7.1985 at 8.15 PM with the allegation that his daughter Km. Shobha was missed from the house on 7.7.1985 at 6.00 AM and he had searched his daughter in the house of his relatives and at various places in the city but he could not trace his daughter anywhere. The F.I.R. is Ex. Ka-3 and on the basis of this FIR, a chick report was prepared by Head Moharir Gaje "Singh i.e. EX.Ka-8. The entry in the G.D. was made, the carbon copy of the G.D. ,is Ex.Ka14. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Lal Singh. Km. Shobha was recovered by the police on 28.7.1985 and the recovery memo was prepared, that recovery memo is Ex.Ka.-7 and the entry was made in the G.D., the carbon copy of the G.D. is Ex.Ka-9. The accused-appellant was also arrested on 28.7.1985 along with the victim Km. Shobha at the Railway Station, Dehradun. Underwear of appellant-Ram Bahadur was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and Fard was prepared, that, Pard is Ex.Ka-6 and underwear of victim Km. Shobha was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and Pard was prepared, that Pard is Ex.Ka-5. Victim Km. Shobha was medically examined by the Medical Officer at Government Women Hospital, Dehradun on 28.7.1985 at 4.25 PM, the copy of the medical report is Ex. Ka-l. After that supplementary medical report was prepared by the Medical Officer Government Women Hospital, Dehradun on 30.7.1985, that report is Ex. Ka-2. After the medical examination victimKm. Shobha was given in the Supurdagi of her mother Smt. Shanti Devi and Supurdagillama was also prepared i.e. Ex.Ka-4. Senior Pathologist, Doon Hospital, Dehradun also submitted report i.e. EX.Ka-10. Radiologist, Doon Hospital, Dehradun-also submitted report i.e. EX.Ka-11. During the course of the investigation the Investigating Officer prepared a site plan of the place of recovery of victim Km. Shobha, that site plan is Ex.Ka.12. The report submitted by the Scientific Officer is Ex.Ka-15. After completmg the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet on 28.8.1985 against the appellant under sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. in the Court of A.C.J.M., Dehradun, that charge-sheet is Ex.Ka-13.
3. Learned A.C.J.M., Dehradun committed the case to the Court of Session on 8.10,1985 under section 209 Cr.P.c. after complying the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against appellant under sections 366 and 376 IPC on 10.12.1985 'and the charges' were read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Dr. Neeta Bhatnagar, who has medically examined victim Km. Shobha, P.W.2 Ram Singh (complainant and father of victim Km.Shobha), P.W.3 Smt. Shanti Devi (mother of victim Km. Shobha), P.WA Shobha Kumari (Victim), P.W. 5 S.I. R.P. Singh, P.W.6 S.I. Lal Singh (Investigating Officer). After, that the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations made against him, and in defence he did not produce any oral or documentary evidence.
6. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned Counsel for both the parties, lea
