Satpal Kaur vs Kotal Singh and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal , J.—Complainant Satpal Kaur has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2009, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby accused Kotal Singh, Maingal Singh, Mandir Singh and Ranjit Singh (Respondents herein) have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

In the present case, the applicant, who is a scheduled caste, had filed a complaint against the Respondents for the offences under Sections 323/324/500/376/452/34/120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act''), on the allegations that Respondents No. 1 (real uncle of the applicant), 3 and 4, after administering intoxicants to Respondent No. 2 (real brother of the applicant) used to instigate him, who used to abuse her, as a result of which she was unable to go to her house and was living with one Rajinder Singh of her village. By taking benefit of her plight, Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 were playing with her honour, regarding which she submitted an application to the police of Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, which was got dismissed by Respondent No. 4. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 started beating the applicant and uttered derogatory words about her caste. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 4 also used to take her to his field, where he along with Respondents No. 1 and 3 used to rape her. Then she narrated her plight to her mother, Kala Singh Ex-Panch and Rajinder Singh, who tried to make the Respondents understand and advised them not to do such acts, but in vain. The applicant further alleged that on 12.5.2007, she submitted an application, accompanied by an affidavit, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, but no action was taken on the same. Thereafter, after getting herself medico legally examined through the Court on 24.5.2007, the applicant filed the complaint.

After completion of the preliminary evidence, all the Respondents were summoned under Sections 3/4 of the Act, 376/452/323/324/500/34 IPC. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 was charge-sheeted for the offences u/s 3 of the Act and Section 376 IPC. Respondents No. 1 and 3 were charge sheeted for the offence u/s 376 IPC, whereas Respondent No. 2 was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 323 and 376 read with Section 120B IPC. All the Respondents did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove her case, the applicant-complainant herself appeared in the witness box as PW.3. She also examined PW.1 Dr. Surinder Kaur, PW.2 Rajinder Singh, PW.4 Kala Singh and PW.5 Balraj Singh.

PW.1 Dr. Surinder Kaur, who medico legally examined the applicant on 24.5.2007 at about 1.20 PM, stated that there was no external mark of injury on the body of the applicant-complainant. She further stated that there was no mark of external injury on genitalia and in the surface of thighs of the applicant, her hymen was absent and vaginal swabs/slides were prepared from the vagina.

PW.2 Rajinder Singh and PW.4 Kala Singh did not support the case of the applicant-complainant.

The applicant-complainant, while appearing as PW.3, reiterated the entire version, as was stated by her in the complaint.

PW.5 Balraj Singh stated that mother of the applicant had told him that accused Ranjit Singh (Respondent No. 4) used to take the applicant-complainant to his tubewell and used to rape her and that he had uttered derogatory words about her caste.

In their statements u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Respondents denied all the allegations appearing against them in the evidence and pleaded innocence. Respondent No. 1 Kotal Singh stated that he is younger brother of the father of the applicant-complainant and is a scheduled caste. He further stated that the applicant was not under the control of her family members. She submitted applications to the police against her brother, who was got released from the custody of the police by him as well as by Respondents No. 2 and 4, due to which he has been falsely implicated in this case. Respondent No. 3, while stating that he is cousin brother of the applicant and is a scheduled caste, also adopted the statement of Respondent No. 1. Similarly, Respondent No. 4 also adopted the statement of Respondent No. 1. He further stated that he is Non-Resident Indian and green card holder of Canada. He took the plea that from 14.11.2003 to 6.5.2004, 19.4.2005 to 13.10.2005, 29.10.2005 to 13.3.2006 and 3.7.2007 to 11.12.2007. He also stated that Balraj Singh (PW.5) is inimical to him. Respondent No. 2 stated that the applicant is his sister, who is unmarried and used to stay outside the house as per her wishes and her acts were objected to by the family, as a result of which she started demanding a share in the residential house and submitted an application to SHO, Police Station Sadar Kotkapura in that regard. He also stated that he is a scheduled caste.

In defence, the Respondents examined DW.1 Anil Kumar Reader, Tehsildar, Faridkot, DW.2 Sukhchain Singh, Stamp Vendor, DW.3 Darshan Singh and DW.4 Makhan Singh.

DW.1 Anil Kumar proved affidavit (Ex.DE) of the mother of the applicant, duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Faridkot.

DW.2 Sukhchain Singh, Stamp Vendor, stated that on 24.5.2001, he had sold a stamp paper of Rs. 20/- to the applicant for an affidavit and he had identified her on the affidavit (Ex.DX).

DW.3 Darshan Singh, who is Ex-Member of Zila Parishad, while supporting the defence version of the Respondents, proved the affidavit (Ex.DE), duly sworn by the mother of the applicant, as he had identified the deponent at the time of attestation of the affidavit.

DW.4 Makhan Singh, Nambardar of village Wander Jatana, proved the audio cassette (Ex.D2).

The trial court, after considering the evidence and the documents available on the record, while coming to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the applicant appears to be false, acquitted the Respondents of the charges framed against them.

After hearing learned Counsel for the applicant-complainant and going through the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that the instant case is not a fit case, where leave to appeal is to be granted.

In the present case, the trial court, after appreciating the evidence led by the complainant, observed that in her application dated 12.5.2007 accompanied by an affidavit, submitted to the police for registration of a case, the complainant did not state as to since when and at which place, she was used to be raped by the accused. She also did not mention the fact that the accused started raping her 3-4 years back. While appearing in the court, during cross-examination, she has stated that whenever she was beaten up, she used to inform Kala Singh, Balraj Singh and Jangir Singh. Out of these three persons, Kala Singh (PW.4) did not support the version of the complainant, whereas Jangir Singh has not been examined by the complainant. So far as Balraj Singh (PW.5) is concerned, it is the specific case of the accused in their statements u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, that Balraj Singh is inimical to accused Ranjit Singh, as in a civil suit, filed by Banarsi Dass against Mohan Singh, the father of Balraj Singh, accused Ranjit Singh had appeared as a witness against Mohan Singh, and the said civil suit was decreed. Even otherwise, the statement of Balraj Singh (PW.5), who is an interested witness, has not been corroborated by any other evidence.

So far as the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are concerned, it has been observed by the learned trial court that in her application submitted to the SSP, the complainant had not alleged that accused Ranjit Singh ever used derogatory words against her caste. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly acquitted the Respondents.

After considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the complainant in the instant case. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the Respondents-accused, is totally perverse, which cannot be taken, at all, in the given circumstances. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.