Ram Prasad vs State of M.P.

Gulam Minhajuddin, J.—This appeal has been filed u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ''Cr. P.C.'') against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-01-1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court at Kawardha in Sessions Trial No. 101/1997 convicting the appellant u/s 376 and 450 of IPC and sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on each count. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case according to prosecution version are that on 30-05-1997 at about 7-00 a.m., when Mani Ram husband of the prosecutrix had gone to the house of Hari Mochi to work as labour, at that time the prosecutrix was doing domestic work, then the accused Ram Prasad entered into the house of the prosecutrix and caught her hands and expressed his desire to commit sexual intercourse. When the prosecutrix refused to do so, she was forcibly thrown on the floor and after that the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. At that time, the husband of the prosecutrix came to his house for taking some instrument (Kami). On seeing the husband of the prosecutrix Mani Ram, accused Ramprasad left the prosecutrix and fled away from the spot. When the husband of the prosecutrix Mani Ram tried to catch him (accused Ramprasad), the accused assaulted the husband of the prosecutrix Mani Ram and fled away. Mani Ram narrated the incident to Usha Bai and witness Ramprasad.

Thereafter at 10-30 a.m. a report was lodged in the police station against the accused Ramprasad on which a crime was registered under Sections 376 and 430 of the IPC. During course of investigation, the prosecutrix and the accused were sent for medical examination. On examination, the accused was found capable of committing sexual intercourse vide Ex. P-8. Broken pieces of bangles were seized from the spot vide Ex. P-4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 of the CrPC.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Rajnandgaon from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Link Court Kawardha received the case on transfer for trial.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the CrPC, in which he denied the circumstances appealing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.

After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the Lower Court Records as well as the impugned judgment.

The contention of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant is that the appellant is Innocent and has been falsely implicated, as the husband of the prosecutrix had taken loan of Rs. 600/- from Ghurav who is elder brother of the accused Ram Prasad and had not returned the same on account of which the relations had been strained since last two years prior to the incident. Learned Senior Advocate in the alternative contended that in the facts and circumstances as well as the conduct of the prosecutrix of the case, it is evident that if at all sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant with the prosecutrix then, for that prosecutrix was a consenting party.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of the trial Court.

Regarding the incidence, the prosecutrix PW-1 has stated that in the month of Vaisakh at about 6-7 a.m. when she was doing her household work and her husband Mani Ram had gone to the house of Had Mochi to work as labour, the appellant came to her house and after forcibly throwing hex on the floor of the room, the appellant committed forceful sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. Prosecutrix Fagni Bai (PW-1) has farther stated that at that very moment, her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) arrived on the spot and on seeing "AjY* the appellant assaulted her husband with a lathi and thereafter, ran away from the spot. As per they prosecutrix, when the appellant had thrown her on the floor of the room and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, she had sustained injuries on her back and wrist. She has further stated that immediately after the incident, the incident was narrated by her to her neighbours Budhwantin Bai (PW-2), Usha Bai and Ram Prasad (PW-3) and thereafter she had lodged report on the very same day at the police station.

Mani Ram (FW-4) who is husband of the prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that after going to work as labour at the house of Hari Mochi, when he returned at about 7-00 a.m. for taking instrument (karni) as demanded by mason, he saw the appellant committing forceful sexual intercourse upon his wife and on seeing him (Mani Ram PW-4), the appellant assaulted him with a lathi and fled away from the spot. This witness has farther stated that his wife prosecutrix (PW-1) had told him that when she was alone, the appellant entered her house and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. According to prosecutrix (PW-1), immediately after the incident, she had narrated the same to Budhwantin Bai, Usha Bai and witness Ram Prasad. Budhwantin Bai (PW-2) has been examined but she has not supported the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband Mani Ram (PW-4), and has stated that prosecutrix (PW-1), her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) and the appellant were assaulting each other on which she had intervened. This witness Budhwantin Bai (PW-2) in very clear terms has stated in her cross-examination that at that time prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) had not told her that the appellant Ram Prasad had committed rape on the prosecutrix (PW-1).

Ram Prasad (PW-3) has stated that construction work was going on in the house of Hari Mochi and the mason had asked Mani Ram (PW-4) to bring instrument (Kami) from the house of Ram Prasad (PW-5) on which Mani Ram (PW-4) had gone to bring the instrument and when he (Mani Ram PW-4) did not return back after 10-15 minutes, he proceeded to enquire about him and met Mani Ram at his house. This witness Ram Prasad has stated that at that time Mani Ram (PW-4) and Ghurav, elder brother of the appellant were fighting and prosecutrix (PW-1), wife of Mani Ram (PW-4) was crying. This witness Ram Prasad (PW-5) has further stated that at that time Mani Ram (PW-4) had told him that the appellant Ram Prasad had committed rape on his wife prosecutrix (PW-1). He had asked Mani Ram (PW-4) and Ghurav not to fight and had accompanied Mani Ram (PW-4) and his wife prosecutrix (PW-1) for lodging the report,

Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that the houses of Jethuram, Sumitra, Raoieshar and other houses are situated near her house and despite raising alarm, no one had come to her rescue when the appellant had committed rape on her. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has further stated that her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) had left the house only half an hour before the incident Mani Ram (PW-4) had gone to the house of Hari Mochi for doing the work of labour and the prosecutrix (PW-1) was not expecting her husband to return only after half an hour From the statement of Ram Prasad (PW-5), it is clear that mason working at the house of Hari Mochi had asked Mani Ram (PW-4) to bring instrument (Kami) from the house of Ram Prasad (PW-5). As per statement of Mani Ram (PW-4), he had not gone to the house of Ram Prasad (PW-5) but had proceeded to his own house and there, he witnessed the commission of rape by appellant Ram Prasad on his wife.

Although prosecutrix (PW-1) had denied that her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) had taken a loan of Rs. 600/- about two years back from the elder brother of appellant Ram Prasad and had not returned the same on account of which a dispute was going on between them, but this fact of taking loan of Rs. 600/- from Ghtuav who is elder brother of appellant Ram Prasad has been admitted by Mani Ram (PW-4) himself, who has also admitted that as tire same has not been returned, there is enmity between them. As per statement of prosecutrix (PW-1), her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) arrived on the spot after the commission of sexual intercourse by the appellant with the prosecutrix. Contrary to this, her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) has stated that he has witnessed the entire act of commission of rape by the appellant on his wife and in the meantime, he has also called Usha Bai and Budhwantin Bai who have also seen the commission of rape by the appellant on the prosecutrix. On this point, the statement of Mani Ram (PW-4) has not been supported by Budhwantin Bai (PW-2). Prosecutrix (P W-1) has stated that at the time of incident the appellant Ram Prasad was wealing lungi whereas, as per the statement of her husband Mani Ram (PW-4), made in para 7, the appellant at the time of incident was wearing half pant.

As per the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) left the house half an hour before the arrival of the accused at the site of occurrence, Mani Ram (PW-4) had gone to perform the work of labour at the house of Hari Mochi as such, prosecutrix (PW-1) was not expecting her husband to return only after half an hour of his departure. As per statement of Ram Prasad (PW-5), mason working at the house of Hari Mochi had asked Mani Ram (PW-4) to bring instrument (Kami) front the house of Ram Prasad (PW-5) but instead of going to the house of Ram Prasad (PW-5), Mani Ram (PW-4) had gone to his own house. From this, it cannot be ruled out that Mani Ram (PW-4) was suspicious about the activities of his wife prosecutrix (PW-1) and when he all of a sudden returned back only half an hour after his departure, he found the appellant committing rape on his wife.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted in her statement in para 10 that her husband Mani Ram had said that he will not keep her and will also snatch the infant child from her. As per statement of the prosecutrix, she was thrown on the floor by the appellant on account of which she had sustained injuries on her back and hand. As per the medical report, no injury was found on the back or any other part of the body of the prosecutrix except superficial abrasion on left wrist. As such the statement of prosecutrix has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. As per admission of Mani Ram (PW-4), he had taken Rs. 600/- from Ghurav who is elder brother of appellant Ram prasad and had not returned the same on account of which there is dispute and enmity between them. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has further admitted in her cross-examination in para 10 that after the incident, her husband Mani Ram had told her that he will not keep her and will also snatch away the infant child from her.

In view of this, it cannot be ruled out that after departure of her husband Mani Ram (PW-4), the prosecutrix (PW-1) was not expecting her husband Mani Ram (PW-4) to return back only after half an hour and when all of a sudden, Mani Ram (PW-4) arrived at the house, he saw his wife prosecutrix (PW-1) in compromising position with the appellant and on seeing her husband, the prosecutrix (PW-1) had raised alarm that the appellant had committed rape on her. In addition to this, there is enmity between the family of the prosecutrix and the appellant. No independent witness has supported the version of the prosecutrix and her husband Mani Ram (PW-4). Version of the prosecutrix has also not been supported by medical evidence.

Considering the entire evidence of the prosecution, totality of facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix (PW-1), it cannot be said that the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and as such, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction & sentences imposed upon the appellant under Sections 376 and 430 of IPC are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged and he need not surrender to his bail bonds. In case the fine had been paid, then the same shall be refunded to the appellant.