Gullu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J—The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.1.1997 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in Special Case No. 266/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced to three years'' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and six month''s RI respectively, with an additional two months'' RI in default of payment of fine.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that on 4.11.1996 the prosecutrix (PW-1) was working in her father''s field at Village Pathariya (Police Station Pathariya District Damoh). At about 6:00 PM the appellant held her and kept a towel on her mouth. Thereafter he committed rape upon the prosecutrix. On shouting of the prosecutrix, the appellant gave a threat that if she would tell about the incident to her parents, then she would be killed. The prosecutrix went to her mother Rooprani (PW-3). Rooprani found that blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix. Komal (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix was informed about the incident on the evening when he came back to the house. The incident was also informed to the witnesses Achheylal (P-5) and Babulal (PW-7). Due to threat given by the parents of the appellants, Komal could not go to the police station to lodge an FIR, and therefore after 4-5 days an FIR Ex.P-1 in shape of a written complaint was lodged. The SHO of Police Station Pathariya registered a case by the document Ex.P-2 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination. Dr. Tulsa Thakur (PW-6) found 5-6 abrasions to the prosecutrix, however no internal injury or any bleeding was found from her private part. Her hymen was found intact. One little finger only could be inserted in the vagina with difficulty. However, some white liquid was found on her outer vagina, and therefore two slides were prepared and handed over to the concerned Constable for forensic science examination of such discharge. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Damoh.

The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

The Special Judge, Damoh after considering the prosecution evidence acquitted the appellant from the charge of Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however convicted him for commission of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that her mouth was closed by the appellant with the help of a towel and thereafter he committed rape upon her. She went to her house after the incident and intimated about the incident to her mother Rooprani (PW-3) and to the witnesses Babulal (PW-7) and Achheylal (PW-5). When her father Komal came to the house, he was informed about the incident. There was a threat given by the parents of the appellant, and therefore an FIR could not be lodged within four days. Thereafter a written report Ex.P-1 was submitted by Komal, father of the prosecutrix at Police Station Pathariya and the crime was registered vide document Ex.P-2. In support of the prosecutrix, Rooprani (PW-3), Komal (PW-2), Achheylal (PW-5) and Babulal (PW-7) have been examined. However, Dr. Tulsa Thakur (PW-6), who recorded the MLC of the prosecutrix as document Ex.P-6A, has discarded the story of the prosecutrix. According to Dr. Tulsa Thakur, 5-6 abrasions were found to the victim on lip, back, left hip, right thigh and left knee. However, she did not find any internal injury or bleeding to the prosecutrix. Her hymen was found intact. There was no discharge from her internal organ, but white discharge was present in the outer surface of the vagina, and therefore she prepared two slides of such discharge and handed over to the concerned Constable after due sealing. The prosecution did not file the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. Dr. Tulsa Thakur has accepted that abrasions found on the body of the prosecutrix could be caused due to nails of bushes. If such abrasions were found to the prosecutrix on her left hip and back due to offence committed, then there was no possibility of such abrasions on lip and two abrasions on left knee. Similarly, no abrasion could be caused on right thigh. Also Dr. Tulsa Thakur did not fix the time period of such abrasions. Those abrasions could be caused before or after the incident. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has accepted in para 18 of her statement that when she went to the field of her father, and was cutting grass, then she sustained injuries due to thorns and bushes grown on the mend of that field. She sustained such injuries in her hands and legs. Hence the explanation has already been given by the prosecutrix for her external injuries on her knee, thigh and lip. The trial Court has convicted the appellant of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC, because Dr. Tulsa Thakur found the hymen of the prosecutrix to be intact and no internal injury was found. When it is specifically alleged by the prosecutrix that the appellant inserted his penis in to her vagina and committed complete rape, then in absence of such symptoms on internal organs of the prosecutrix, the evidence of the prosecutrix would be disbelievable. When there was allegation made of complete rape, then it cannot be said that the offence falls within the attempt to commit rape and hence the view taken by the Special Judge is not correct.

In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution appears to be fishy and and concocted. First of all, it is to be noted that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of 4-5 days and it is submitted in the written form. The prosecutrix had admitted that her uncle Dwarka Prasad was a Police Constable, who was posted at Police Station AJAK, Damoh. On information given by her father, Dwarka Prasad came to the house of the prosecutrix on the same evening and thereafter the FIR was lodged. When she was produced before the SHO Pathariya, the SHO had stated that no case is made out. Thereafter he advised the police Constable Dwarka Prasad to lodge a written report and thereafter the report was written by Dwarka Prasad and her father appended his signature on the report and thereafter the written FIR Ex.P-1 was filed before the SHO Pathariya.

Komal (PW-2) has stated that since he was threatened by the parents of the appellants, he could not lodge the FIR for 4-5 days and the FIR was not prepared by Constable Dwarka Prasad. As per his statement, he could contact with his relative Dwarka Prasad with a difficulty and Dwarka Prasad immediately left his house on the evening and thereafter Komal visited the Police Station Pathariya and lodged a written FIR. However, in the cross examination of this witness, he has accepted that he was daily visiting the village Pathariya to sell vegetable. If he was going out of his residence and specially to village Pathariya where Police Station was situated, then there was no problem to him to lodge an FIR on the next day of the incident. If any threat was given by the parents of the appellant, then as to why such reason was not mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-1 or case diary statement Ex.D-2 given by this witness. There is no corroborative evidence on the record to show that the parents of the appellant have given a threat to complainant Komal. Witnesses Achheylal and Babulal, who were examined in support of the prosecutrix could say about that threat, but they did not say anything that the complainant told them about the threat given by the parents of the appellant, and hence it would be apparent that there is no good explanation with the complainant about the delay of 4-5 days in lodging the FIR.

If the cross examination of witness Komal is examined, then he has accepted that his relative Dwarka Prasad came to his house on the next day of the incident and a talk took place of complainant Komal with Dwarka Prasad and Dwarka Prasad advised him to lodge an FIR. If the Constable of Police Station AJAK was relative of the complainant, then he could go along with Constable Dwarka Prasad to lodge an FIR at Police Station Pathariya on second day of the incident. According to the prosecutrix, an intimation was given about the incident to the relative Dwarka Prasad on the same night and he came in the same very night. When the complainant had a shelter of police official, then he could go to lodge an FIR with that Constable Dwarka Prasad on the same very day or at the most on the next day of the incident.

Komal and the prosecutrix have accepted that the appellant cultivated the land of Komal one year prior to the incident and in the current year of the incident, brother of the appellant took the field of the complainant Komal on rent. The field was cultivated and in the beginning a plough was hired to plough the land and there was a dispute relating to payment of rent of plough. Hence the admission of the prosecutrix can be accepted that when the complainant told about the dispute to the SHO concerned, the SHO advised that no case is made out. Under these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that due to dispute of payment of rent of plough, the complainant had lodged an FIR of rape against the appellant to create a pressure upon the appellant and his brother. If the rape would have committed by the appellant upon the prosecutrix, then some internal injury must be present, which could be found by Dr. Tulsa Thakur. Looking to the report of Dr. Tulsa Thakur, it appears that a false case has been lodged against the appellant.

The prosecutrix has stated that when she went to her house and told about the incident to her mother Rooprani (PW-3), then witnesses Babulal (PW-7) and Achheylal (PW-5) came to the house of the prosecutrix and they were informed about the incident. However, there is a lot of contradiction between the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother Rooprani, Babulal and Achheylal about the time and place of narration of story. According to Rooprani, when the prosecutrix was telling about the incident to her, the witnesses came and thereafter her husband Komal came to the house. On the contrary, Achheylal has stated that when Rooprani was weeping, he had asked about the reason for weeping and thereafter the narration of the incident was given by Rooprani. However, in the cross examination, he has accepted that he went to the house of Rooprani on her intimation. It was not expected from Rooprani that in place of telling about the incident to her husband, she would have called another person from the locality, who was neither Kotwar, nor Patwari, Panch or Sarpanch and told about the incident. Similarly, Achheylal has stated that he saw that the frock of the prosecutrix was torn, however it is not told by the prosecutrix or her mother that in the incident the frock of the prosecutrix was torn. It appears that witness Achheylal is showing an extra interest in favour of complainant Komal to establish the case. Similarly, according to the prosecutrix and her mother, the witnesses came to the house of the prosecutrix, whereas Babulal (PW-7) has stated that he was cleaning his utensil at a particular hand pump where the prosecutrix visited that hand pump while going to her house. She was weeping at that time and when she was asked by Babulal, she told about the incident. Thereafter he went to the house of the prosecutrix and told to her parents to lodge an FIR. He has also stated that he saw torn underwear of the prosecutrix and blood was oozing from her private part. He has stated that there was a clot of blood on the thigh of the prosecutrix and her both knees were bruised. However, his statement was found contradictory to his case diary statement Ex.D-4. The prosecutrix and her mother did not say that witness Babulal met with the prosecutrix at the hand pump and he visited to her house with her. Similarly, no torn underwear was seized by the police. The prosecutrix and her mother Rooprani did not say that underwear of the prosecutrix was torn. Dr. Tulsa Thakur did not find any reason so that any internal bleeding would have been caused to the prosecutrix 4-5 days back. Under such circumstances, the statement of Babulal is nothing, but a bundle of falsehood. It appears that to support the complainant Komal, he is telling a falsehood beyond his previous version as stated to the police in the document Ex.D-4. Hence by examining witnesses Achheylal and Babulal, no support to the prosecution story was obtained. If the incident would have taken place with the prosecutrix, then reputed persons of the village would have been informed about the incident, but the complainant Komal did not state that he told about the incident to Village Kotwar, Patwari, Panch or Sarpanch. Looking to the statements of Achheylal and Babulal, it appears that they are supporting complainant Komal without any basis and exaggerating their version.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of 4-5 days, whereas there was no reason to cause any delay in making the FIR where complainant was supported by his relative Police Constable Dwarka Prasad. According to the prosecutrix, complaint Ex.P-1 was prepared by the Constable Dwarka Prasad and the allegations made in the complaint could not be corroborated by the medical evidence. It is true that no corroboration of medical evidence is required to believe the testimony of the prosecutrix, but in the present case, the medical evidence negativates of the testimony of the prosecutrix. It is not the case where the prosecutrix has stated that the appellant tried to insert his penis in her vagina. On the contrary, she has stated that the appellant had completed cohabitation with the prosecutrix, whereas no such symptom was found on the private part of the prosecutrix. On the contrary, her hymen was found intact. No blood was oozing from the internal organs of the prosecutrix. Dr. Tulsa Thakur has specifically accepted that there was no internal discharge. Some white discharge was placed in outer surface of the vagina and she did not explain what was the source of that discharge. Hence the testimony of the prosecutrix is not believable that the appellant had committed any rape upon her. Looking to the evidence given by Komal and the prosecutrix relating to enmity between Komal and the appellant and his brother, the possibility cannot be ruled out that a false FIR has been lodged to create a pressure upon the appellant so that the dispute between the complainant and the appellant and his brother could be resolved.

As discussed above, the evidence given by the prosecutrix is not believable, because her evidence was negativated by Dr. Tulsa Thakur in her report Ex.P-6A. The written FIR was lodged with a delay of 4-5 days and no acceptable explanation was given for such delay. It is also established that the FIR was prepared by police constable Dwarka Prasad, who was relative of the complainant. Police Constable Dwarka Prasad was not examined before the trial Court though entire incident was told to him by the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the prosecutrix is not at all believable. It appears that a false case has been lodged against the appellant. It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant had committed any intercourse with the prosecutrix or committed any indecent act with her. Hence the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Section 376, 376 read with Section 511 or Section 354 of IPC. The trial Court has committed a manifest error in convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC.

The trial Court has framed the charge of Section 506-B of IPC on the ground that the appellant threatened the prosecutrix while he was committing rape. When it is highly doubtful that any rape was committed with the prosecutrix by the appellant, then there is no question of giving a threat to the prosecutrix. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant gave any threat to the prosecutrix while committing any rape. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant of offence under Section 506-B of IPC.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed. His conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 506-B of IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from all the charges appended against him. He would be entitled to get the fine amount back if he has deposited the same before the trial Court.

At present the appellant is on bail, and his presence is no more required, therefore it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.