IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than in expected of an injured witness.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 376 and 342- Trial Court convicted the accused only for an offence under section 376 and sentenced him to undergo 5 years R. I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Convict assailed his conviction by preferring an appeal- Appellate Court accepted the convicts appeal and acquitted him of the charge-- Constitution of India- Article 136 - Both the State and a Social Organisation, by special leave, filed appeals against the judgment of acquittal Respondent took P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the police station at dead of night- Evidence of P.W. 4 leaves no room for doubt that P.W.2 (prosecutrix) was lodged in his hotel at the respondent's instance-: Hotel was situate within the jurisdiction of his police station-On both the occasions Prosecutrix was completely denuded before the respondent raped her- Ext. 69 shows that prosecutrix's clothes were stained with human blood and seinen-- Absence of semen or spermatozoa in the vaginal smear and .slides cannot cast doubts on the prosecutrix's credit, worthiness- Respondent being a strong man over powered the prosecutrix and took her by force- Prosecutrix was alone and helpless, the victim of the respondent's bruth force and lust- P.W.1's (prosecutrix's husband) evidence cannot be said to be unacceptable-- Respondent planned the whole thing to satisfy his lust; find also attempted to commit suicide - Trial Court adopted a correct approach and properly evaluated the evidence in finding the respondent guilty of the offence of rape- Impugned sentences are not harsh- Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference (Yes). (Paras 1 & 22 to 28)

JUDGMENT

A. M. Ahmadi, J.- This appeal by special leave is brought by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Bombay (Maharashtra) reversing the conviction of the respondent Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, a Sub-Inspector of Police, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed rape on Shamimbanu, a girl aged about 19 or 20 years on 2200 August, 1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, came to the conclusions that the prosecution had brought home the charge under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the respondent to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ,5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent challenged his conviction in appeal to the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and acquitted the respondent. The State feeling aggrieved sought special leave to appeal. On the same being granted this appeal is before us.

2. Briefly the facts are that the parents of Shamirnbanu were residing as tenants in a part of the building belonging to the father of Mohmad Shaft while the remaining portion was occupied by the owner's family. P.W. 1 Mohmad Shafi aged about 25 years fell in love with P.W. 2 Shamirnbanu aged about 19 years. The prosecution case is that although the parents of both knew about their love affair, for some reason or the other, they were not married. Both of them left Nagpur and went to Bombay where they contracted a marriage through a Kazi and returned to Nagpur by train on 20th August, 1981. They got down at Anjani Railway Station (a suburb of Nagpur) and went to a nearby Gurudeo Lodge and occupied Room No. 204. That night i.e. on the night of 20th/21st August, 1981, P.W. 8 Police Sub-Inspector Qureishi checked the hotel and learnt that the couple was living in the said room in the assumed names of Mohmad Shabbir and Sultana. On being questioned P.W.1 Mohmad Shaft gave out the true facts and showed the Nikahoama Ex. to. On being satisfied about the correctness of the version, Police Sub-Inspector Qureishi got their correct names substituted in the register of the Lodge as is evident from the entry Ex. 31, proved by P.W. 5 Manohar Dhote; the Manager of the Lodge. Police Sub-Inspector Qureishi did not deem it necessary to take any steps against the couple.

2a. On the next night between 21st and 22nd August, 1981 the respondent-accused went to the hotel room No. 204 occupied by the couple at the odd time of about 2.30 a.m. and knocked on the door. He was accompanied by P.W. 7 Constable Chandrabhan. When Mohmad Shaft opened the door me respondent questioned him on seeing Shamimbanu with him. Mohmad Shaft told him that she was his wife and gave their correct names. Notwithstanding their replies the respondent insisted that they accompany him to the police station. P.W.5 requested the respondent to sign his visit book since he had inspected a. few rooms of his Lodge including Room No. 204 but the respondent told him that he would do it later. So saying he left the Lodge with the couple.

3. On reaching the police station the respondent separated the couple. He took Shamimbanu to the first floor of the police station while her husband Mohmad Shaft was taken to another room by P.W. 7. Shamimbanu alleges that after she was taken to the first floor, the respondent flirted with her, slapped her when she refused to respond to his flirtation and demanded that she spend the night with him. The respondent .also demanded that she should give her age as 15 years so that Mohmad Shaft could be booked. On her refusing and protesting against his behaviour he threatened her with dire consequences.

4. In the other room Mohmad Shaft was subjected to beating by P.W. 7. After sometime both the boy and the girl were brought down

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTOrdinarily, the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than in expected of an injured witness.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than in expected of an injured witness.