Karan Singh vs State of U.P.

Ranjana Pandya, J.—1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order date 30.08.2014, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Chitrakoot, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2013 (State v. Karan Singh @ Ranjeet), arising out of Case Crime No. 6293 of 2011, under Sections 328/34, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot, whereby the appellant was acquitted for the charges under Sections 328/34 I.P.C. and 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act. The appellant Karan Singh @ Ranjeet was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation. 50% of the fine is directed to be paid as compensation to the victim.

The prosecution story in brief is that the father of the victim namely Ram Kripal has lodged a written report on 28.12.2011 stating that he along with his daughter boarded a train on 26.12.2011, from Khurhand Railway Station and reached Chitrakoot on the same day. On 27.12.2011, when he was doing "Parikarma" of "Kamtanath", he met the son-in-law of his friend Narain @ Narain Das namely Karan Singh along with his wife Seema who said that he would get the informant comfortable with his stay in the "Dharamshala" and would also make him to visit the places of at interest at Chitrakoot by his Bolero Car. After the "Parikarma" as per the request of the accused, the victim along with her father stayed at Goyanka Dharmshala, Sitapur, Chitrakoot in room No. 5. After that, on 27.12.2011 at 11:00 P.M., Karan Singh and his wife took the victim on the pretext to take for site her seeing. When she did not return for quite some time, he tried to trace his daughter. When he reached on the road, near the Hanumaan Temple, he found his daughter weeping and in a shattered position, who stated that at 09:30 P.M., Seema fraudulently administered her intoxicated tea due to which she became incapacitated. Seema left, whereby her husband raped her in his Bolero Car. After that they left her on the road near Hanumaan Temple and fled away. Since It was late night, the informant stayed back in the Dharamshala and next day he lodged the first information report.

On the basis of this written report, investigation was entrusted to C.O. Krishna Chandra Singh, PW-5. On 05.07.2012, the statement of the victim was recorded. On 14.07.2012, the supplementary statement of the informant was recorded. Letters were sent to the S.P., Chitrakoot for arrest of the accused. On 28.11.2012, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and N.B. warrant were obtained against the accused persons. The matter was copied in the case diary. On 28.12.2012, the accused appellant Karan Singh was apprehended and he was sent for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 31.12.2012, charge sheet was submitted by this witness which was proved as Exhibit Ka-5. Part of the investigation was also conducted by retired Dy. S.P., Param Lal Verma, PW-4. He copied the written report, first information report and chik report in the case diary, recorded the statements of the informant and the victim in the case diary. He inspected the spot, further recorded the statements of Rajendra Tripathi, Arun Tripathi, Mata Badal Pal, Brij Lal Awasthi, Raj Narayan Yadav, Guddu, Ram Saran and other witnesses. After that he sent the victim for her statement being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The supplementary statement of the victim was recorded. He inspected the spot, prepared and proved the site plan as Exhibit Ka-4. Dr. Rajeev Dwivedi PW-6 has conducted the ossification test of the victim and proved the pathological report as Exhibit Ka-6 and supplementary report as Exhibit Ka-7. PW-3 is Constable Vijay Naresh who scribed the chik report which was proved as Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3 and the copy of G.D. As Exhibit Ka-4.

The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. PW-1 is the victim who proved the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka-1. PW-2 is Ram Kripal, the informant and father of the victim who has proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-2. The statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have already been discussed.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who denied the incident and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

After hearing counsel for both the parties, the learned lower court has passed the sentence and conviction as specified in para one of this judgment.

Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellant has come into this appeal.

I have heard Sri Rama Nand Yadav, holding brief of Sri Sharad Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the original record of the trial court.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay in lodging the first information report, which casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. Perusal of the chik report shows that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.12.2011 at 09:30 P.M., whereas the report of the matter was lodged on the next day at 20:30 hours The distance of the police station being 6 Kms. from the place of occurrence. As far as non lodging of the report on 28.12.2011 is concerned, the informant has stated in the first information report itself that since it was late in the night, he did not go to the police station to lodge the first information report. It has no where come in the first information report that since the reputation of the family was at stake, hence the first information report was not lodged promptly. Ram Kripal PW-2 the informant has stated that after the incident, his daughter returned home. He found his daughter weeping on the road. Thus, even from the evidence, it is clear that the girl was traced immediately after the occurrence. In this regard, in cross-examination, Ram Kripal PW-2 has stated that he brought his daughter back in the same Dharmshala in which Karan Singh was also staying. On the next day at 08:30 P.M. the report was got typed and lodged. This explanation is neither reasonable nor palatable and no reason has come forth that even if on the previous night, the applicant could not lodge the first information report, what was the reason for his not lodging the first information report on the next morning. As far as the delay in lodging the first information report is concerned, generally in rape cases, delay in lodging the first information report is not construed seriously. Although, I am aware that mere delay in lodging the first information report cannot be a ground by itself for throwing out the entire prosecution case over board. After an explanation for the delay which has been assigned but in the present case, there is no such explanation for the delay. No doubt, the Indian society being what itself the victims of such a crime ordinary consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police but this is not the position in the present case thus, there is delay in lodging the first information report which casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.

As far as the incident under Section 376 I.P.C. is concerned, the involvement of the wife of the appellant was found false by the trial court on the same set of evidence. The father of the victim has said that when he brought back the victim to the Dharmshala from the place of occurrence, he stayed along with his daughter in the same room in which the accused and his wife were present. This conduct is not probable that the father would keep his daughter in the same room in which a rapist was staying with his wife who after knowing that, that person has raped his daughter.

PW-1, the victim has stated that the occurrence took place inside the car. She was given tea to drink. She became unconscious but she could make out that after she was being raped, she was pushed in the bushes. After some time, she gained consciousness and saw that her clothes were left separate, she wore her clothes and came on the road, where she met her father. The same incident was narrated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but as per the injury report of the victim, the doctor did not find any mark of injury on the body of the victim. The medical report of the victim Exhibit Ka-7 does not indicate any mark of injury on the body of the victim. Her hymen was old and torn. No fresh injury was seen. The vagina was admitting two fingers easily. If the victim would have been pushed from the car in the thorny bushes, there was no reason why she would not have sustained some injuries, especially when she was examined on 27.11.2012 at 11:45 A.M.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident is said to have taken place on 27.12.2011, whereas the medical report mentions the date of occurrence as 27.01.2012 and the time of medical examination is at 11:45 A.M.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that Dr. Rajeev Dwivedi has inadvertently mentioned the date and time of the medical. Dr. Rajeev Dwivedi PW-6 who also internally examined the victim has stated that the age of the victim was between 18 to 19 years. No sperms were found in the slide. No family member of the victim was present at the time of internal examination. Dr. Kadira Sultana was supervising at the time, he was examining the victim.

In the traditional non-permissive bounds of society of India, no girl or woman of self-respect and dignity would depose falsely, implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardising her future prospect of getting married with a suitable match.

It is also trite law that in a case of rape the evidence of the Prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.

In the present case, the victim has stated that she was known to the accused from before. She has further admitted that the accused, his wife, victim and her father all stayed in one room in the Dharmshala. She has further stated that she was raped in the car and later she was pushed from the car and the accused fled away. Although, this would not be relevant but I would like to refer to the statement of the victim who has admitted that prior to this, one Pappu had raped her which case is pending in the Banda Court. One Maniram had also raped her which trial was also pending in the Banda court. She has stated that she had come to the court with her private counsel. The statement of PW-2, father of the victim would also be relevant since what was stated to him, was stated by the victim soon after the occurrence. The father PW-2 Ram Kripal has stated that he met his daughter in unconscious state at Chitrokoot and the victim was left on the road. This witness has further stated that his daughter was taken at 06:00 P.M. for site seeing by Karan Singh and his wife Seema. When the father of the victim went to trace his daughter, she was found lying near the Hanumaan temple, unconscious at 10:30 P.M. but she gained consciousness one hour after this witness reached near his daughter. He has also admitted that two times the victim was raped in the village. The statement of PW-1 the victim and PW-2 Ram Kripal are contradictory.

As I have said earlier, this would not make much of difference but it has definitely to be kept into mind that, the whole story, as narrated by the victim and her father is undigestible, contradictory to each other and not reliable. It appears that the victim being a major was a consenting party.

In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have denied the occurrence. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed.

The order of conviction and sentence dated 30.08.2014, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Chitrakoot, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2013 (State v. Karan Singh @ Ranjeet), arising out of Case Crime No. 6293 of 2011, under Sections 328/34, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot is hereby set aside.

The appellant namely Karan Singh is in jail. He may be released forthwith. However, the appellant is directed to comply with the provision of Section 437A Cr.P.C..

Let copy of this judgment be sent to trial court.