Complainant "U" vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is an application filed by the complainant under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 26.02.2016, whereby the respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 376 & 506 Part- II of the Indian Penal Code.

The application is filed by the prosecutrix herself and therefore, in order to mask her identity, the name of the prosecutrix is not being reflected either in the cause title or in the order. In the cause title it is shown as "U".

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 02.06.2014 at about 8:00 p.m. when the prosecutrix had gone for nature's call in the field, all of a sudden the accused came from the back side and caught hold her hand and threw her on the field and when she tried to cry, her mouth was gagged by the accused and thereafter, the accused violated her. It is further alleged that the accused was armed with an axe and also threatened the prosecutrix to kill, in case the incident is disclosed to anyone. She narrated the incident to her sister-in-law (Jethani)- Urmila (PW-2) as her husband and mother-in-law were not at home. The incident was further disclosed by Urmila to the husband of the prosecutrix and also brother-in-law (Jeth). Thereafter, a report was lodged at Police Station Bordehi and the Crime No. 2004/2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 506 of the IPC.

The criminal Case was set at motion. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and the accused was arrested. Site plan (Ex.P-4) was prepared and the broken piece of bangles were seized, vide Ex.P-5. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court of law which in its turn committed the matter to the Court of Sessions for trial.

The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

Prosecution examined Sukali (PW-1), Urmila Bai (PW-2), Prosecutrix (PW-3), Ramchandra (PW-4), Manmohan Singh (PW-5), Dr. Ritu Khanna (PW-6), Sonu Singh (PW-7) and Prem Pal (PW-8).

The prosecutrix is a married woman having three children. According to the prosecutrix, on the date of incident her mother-in-law and her husband were not at home. She had gone to attend the nature's call at around 08:00 p.m. in the field. The accused came from the back side and caught hold of her. She was thrown on the field and when she tried to shout, she was threatened to be killed by the accused, as he was also armed with an axe. Thereafter accused removed her undergarments and violated her. She further deposed that since her mother-in-law and her husband were not at home, therefore, the incident was informed to Urmila Bai (PW-2). In the night at around 10:00 p.m. when her brother-in-law came to the house, then the incident was narrated to him.

In the statement she stated that when her husband came back in the night at about 10:00 p.m. she narrated the story to him. Whereas in the report she stated that on the date of incident itself she had disclosed the incident to her husband and brother-in-law in the field. She has stated that she was thrown on the field and her undergarments were removed and she was sexually exploited. This part of the statement was not mentioned in the report (Ex.P-1) and also in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She stated in her cross-examination that when she was thrown on the hard surface, she received injuries on her back and there was swelling. She further stated that she received wound from the broken piece of bangles. She was medically examined by Dr. Ritu Khanna (PW-6) on 03.06.2014. The doctor did not find any injury on the back of the prosecutrix though the surface was hard as there were stems of mustered crop after harvesting. The doctor also did not find any wound on the hand of the prosecutrix, as alleged to be caused by the broken bangles.

In the present case, the testimony of prosecutrix is not corroborated by the medical evidence and further, the accused has stated that there was an old rivalry between the family of the accused and the prosecutrix. On the earlier occasion also a report under section 354, 376, 435 IPC was lodged against them. They have also produced the copy of the order passed by the Court in the Criminal Case No. 3042/2014 where his elder brother Saligram was made an accused. The said report was also lodged by the prosecutrix and her sister-in-law Urmila and present accused was also made accused in that case and the accused persons were acquitted.

The husband of the prosecutrix Ramchandra (PW-4) in para-4 of his cross-examination has admitted that the report was lodged by his wife. Sukali (PW-1) stated that the family of the prosecutrix and the accused are not in talking terms.

Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the entire evidence found that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not creditworthy as it is not corroborated by medical evidence. Hence the accused is falsely implicated in the present case because of old rivalry.

We find that the trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused as the statement of the prosecutrix was not found creditworthy because it was not corroborated by the medical evidence as well.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, genesis of the occurrence, character of evidence, especially testimony of the prosecutrix which is not corroborated with medical evidence and other cogent and plausible evidence, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and the same is impeccable.

In view of the aforesaid assimilation of facts and evidence, we do not find any error in the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in appellate jurisdiction. The scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is settled in various judgments.

In the case of Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal & Ors. (2016)16 SCC 418 the Apex Court referred earlier judgments rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Harihar Bux Singh, (1975)3 SCC 167 ; State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1979)3 SCC 1 ; State of U.P. Vs. Gopi, 1980 Supp. SCC 160; State of Karnataka Vs.Amajappa, (2003)9 SCC 468; State of U.P. Vs. Banne, (2009)4 SCC 271 ; State of U.P. Vs. Guru Charan, (2010) 3 SCC 721; State of Haryana Vs. Shakuntla, (2012)5 SCC 171; and Hamza Vs. Muhammedkutty, (2013)11 SCC 150 and held that int he case of acquittal, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with appreciation of evidence on the findings of facts, unless the same is perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. Mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence on record, is not a ground for reversing conviction.

In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, needs not to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the application for grant of leave to appeal, is dismissed.