Mohd. Jameel vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years

and fine of Rs.500/- with

default stipulation

broken and broken pieces of the bangles had pierced and she had suffered injuries and she had shown the said injuries to the doctor.,

Firatram (Firoz Kumar) (PW4) is father of the prosecutrix. He has deposed that at the time when he reached at the spot, the Appellant had",

mounted over the body of the prosecutrix. He abused the Appellant. Then the Appellant and other acquitted accused persons committed marpeet with,

him. Then he took the prosecutrix and ran away from there. Thereafter, at about 12:30 p.m., he made a report at the police station. This witness has",

further deposed that no medical examination of the prosecutrix was done. The accused persons were not arrested. Then he went to the,

Superintendent of Police on 5.2.2000 and told him also about the whole incident and thereafter in the Court when hearing of the bail application was to,

be done, he raised his objection. In paragraph 13 of the his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he, his wife and the prosecutrix had",

received a notice from the Court, therefore, he had gone to the Court to raise his objection. In paragraph 20, this witness has further stated that the",

prosecutrix had suffered injuries on various parts of her body and she had also suffered injury from her broken bangles.,

Vimal Kumar Sahu (PW7) is an Advocate. He prepared the objection letter (Ex.P8) which was submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial,

Magistrate at the time of submission of the charge- sheet. He has deposed that the prosecutrix and her father and mother had come to him and as,

was told by them he had prepared and submitted the objection letter (Ex.P8) before the Court.,

Dr. Beena Agrawal (PW2) examined the prosecutrix on 17.2.2000. According to her, there was no injury present over outer parts of the body of",

the prosecutrix. Hymen of the prosecutrix was old ruptured at 2-3 places. 2 fingers entered in her vagina with some pain. This witness has opined that,

earlier sexual intercourse was done with the prosecutrix, but she was not able to give any definite opinion regarding any recent sexual intercourse with",

her. During cross-examination, she has admitted that she had not told about duration of rupturing of hymen of the prosecutrix. Her report is Ex.P4.",

Sub-Inspector Dikeshwar Diwan (PW9) is the witness who investigated into the offence in question. He has admitted the fact that at the time of,

recording FIR (Ex.P3), parents of the prosecutrix had come along with her and he had recorded the contents in the FIR as was told by the prosecutrix",

in presence of her parents. In paragraph 28, this witness has deposed that he had not seen any injury either on the hands of the prosecutrix or on any",

other part of her body nor did he find any broken pieces of bangles at the spot.,

Revenue Inspector Rajeshwar Singh (DW1) has deposed that mother of the prosecutrix Shobhabai (PW3) was getting a house constructed over,

an encroached land of the government. He had prevented her on the spot. On this, she had abused him and on the next day after tearing her saree she",

had made a false complaint before the Additional Collector, Korba in which a departmental inquiry was conducted against him, but he was acquitted",

of the charges. The above statement of this witness has not been duly rebutted during his cross-examination.,

Dhananjay (DW2) has also deposed that a dispute had taken place between him and mother of the prosecutrix and thereafter mother of the,

prosecutrix had lodged a false report against him.,

Shobhabai (PW3) and Firatram (Firoz Kumar) (PW4), both mother and father of the prosecutrix, respectively have admitted that a complaint was",

made by Shobhabai (PW3) against Rajeshwar, but, according to them, that Rajeshwar was not a Revenue Inspector. He was a different person.",

On a minute examination of the evidence available on record, it is clear that initially on 29.1.2000, FIR (Ex.P3) was lodged by the prosecutrix in",

which offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Though the prosecutrix as well as her father have stated that the Appellant,

had committed rape with the prosecutrix on the relevant date and according to them their report was not properly written in the police station, the",

prosecutrix has categorically admitted that she herself had put her signature on the FIR (Ex.P3). From the admission made by the prosecutrix, it is also",

clear that the objection letter (Ex.P8), which was got drafted through their Counsel was also read by her. It means she is a literate girl. Therefore, if",

the FIR (Ex.P3) was not registered according to her then why did she not raise any objection at that time itself or immediately thereafter. From the,

statements of the prosecutrix as well as her father, it is also established that they had received a notice regarding submission of a charge-sheet and",

thereafter on the date of filing of the charge-sheet, they visited the Court and raised an objection (Ex.P8) through their Counsel. From the above also,",

it is established that before filing of the charge- sheet itself, through the notice, they were aware that the charge- sheet was being filed for the offence",

punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code only. If they wanted to raise an objection, they could have approached the Court or to higher",

officers of the police station immediately after receiving the notice, but they did not do so and reached the Court only on the date of hearing of the bail",

application of the Appellant. From the statement of Dr. Beena Agrawal (PW2), it is also established that at the time of examination of the prosecutrix,",

no injury was found over any part of the body of the prosecutrix. But, according to the prosecutrix herself and her father, she had suffered injuries on",

her back and hands and at the time of her medical examination, the prosecutrix had shown those injuries to the doctor. Though hymen of the",

prosecutrix was found old ruptured, what was period of rupturing of the hymen has not been reported by the examining doctor. From the evidence",

adduced by the prosecution, it is also clear that at the time of incident, a quarrel had taken place between the Appellant and father of the prosecutrix in",

which the Appellant and other co- accused persons (acquitted) had committed marpeet with the father of the prosecutrix. From the statements of,

Rajeshwar Singh (DW1) and Dhananjay (DW2), it also seems that mother of the prosecutrix was in the habit of making reports. Therefore, a",

possibility cannot be ruled out that an exaggerative and false report would have been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix as a counter to the,

marpeet taken place with him in the quarrel done by the Appellant and other acquitted co-accused persons. From the statements of the prosecutrix,

and her father, it is also established that they have developed their statements on material points and there are material contradictions and omissions",

also in their statements. From the entire material available, in my considered opinion, the alleged offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The",

Appellant is, therefore, entitled to get benefit of doubt.",

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge",

framed against him.,

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,