State of Himachal Pradesh vs Bhajan Lal

Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge

For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 4th August, 2004, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 28th March, 2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions Trial No. 18-S/7 of 2004, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Bhajan Lal, accused stands acquitted of the charged offences. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4th August, 2004, prosecutrix (PW-1) had gone to the forest, near village Ralli Manjali, to collect fuel wood. She was also carrying a "Drat" with herself at that time. At about 4 p.m., accused, who also hails from the same village, arrived on the spot, took the "Drat" from the hand of the prosecutrix, threw it in the bushes and thereafter, after dragging the prosecutrix for some time, pushed her on the ground, as a result of which she sustained injuries on her body. Prosecutrix was then subjected to rape by the accused. She cried for help. Hearing her cries, Shri Durga Dass (PW-3) arrived at the spot. Accused then ran away from the spot. Shri Durga Dass took the prosecutrix to her house. In the evening, at about 6, husband of the prosecutrix Shri Tara Chand (PW-2) came when she narrated the incident to him. Shri Tara Chand took the prosecutrix to Police Post Kuthar, where report dated 5th August, 2004 (Ex. PA) was lodged, copy of which was sent to Police Station, Kasauli, where FIR No. 82, dated 5th August, 2004 (Ex. PJ) was registered. Prosecutrix was got medically examined through Dr. Renu Vats (PW-4), who issued MLC (Ex. PB). Salwar worn by the prosecutrix was taken into possession by the police and sent for chemical analysis, alongwith the other material and report (Ex. PK) was obtained. Police, after visiting the spot also prepared site plan (Ex. PN) and recorded statements of the relevant witnesses.

With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (second part) of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. Accused also examined one witness in support of his defence of false implication on account of animosity.

We have heard Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate/Senior Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Shri Himmat Negi, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same.

Significantly, in the instant case, we find that statement of prosecutrix is not only self contradictory and uninspiring confidence but to some extent also helps the accused. We also find that her version in Court with regard to sustenance of injuries is uncorroborated by the medical evidence.

That prosecutrix is more than 18 years of age is not in dispute. In fact her age is 32 years and she is mother of four children.

MLC (Ex. PB) records that prosecutrix was allegedly "manhandled by one person". Significantly, she did not disclose the factum of rape or the identity of the accused to the doctor. Also, PW-4 has opined that no injuries were found on the back, legs, ankles or head of the prosecutrix as is so claimed by her. The doctor opined that no injuries or signs of sexual assault were actually found on the body of the prosecutrix. It was only on the basis of report of the Chemical Examiner that she gave an opinion to the effect that "it is difficult to suggest that she is not been raped".

We find that prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed in Court that the accused caught her in the jungle and pulled/dragged her, as a result of which her ankles and back got hurt and injured. This version is not corroborated by any medical evidence. She further admits it to be correct that in the village there is a rumour that she and the accused are having relations for the last several years, though she has denied truthfulness in the same. Significantly, she states that report was lodged with the police on the very same day of the incident. She states that she reached the Police Post at about 10 p.m. Now, this uncontroverted version of hers renders the prosecution story of lodging the report, the day following the date of the incident to be false. Genesis of the prosecution story thus stands knocked out. That apart, prosecutrix states that she bled from the injuries sustained by her, whereas no blood was found either on her clothes or on her body, as is so stated by Dr. Renu Vats (PW-4).

Most importantly, prosecutrix states that she had raised alarm for about half an hour and one Shri Dhian Singh of her own village, though was present in the forest, but he did not come to rescue her upon hearing her cries. Now, police has not tried to associate this person during investigation, neither has he been examined in Court. Site plan (Ex. PN) shows that the spot in question is surrounded by houses. Had prosecutrix resisted the acts of the accused or cried for help, residents of the adjoining houses and more particularly Shri Dhian Singh would have come to her rescue. Significantly, alleged offence took place at about 5 p.m. when normally villagers return from their work to their houses. Public path is also close-by. All this renders the story to be improbable. Statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and it is not safe to rely upon the same.

Coming to the statement of Shri Durga Dass, who allegedly rescued the prosecutrix from the clutches of the accused, we find testimony of this witness to be unworthy of credence. We find that he has made improvements in Court and his statement is also not free from embellishments. He states that the accused had run away from the spot with his "Pyjama" or pants, but however, when confronted with his previous statement (Ex. DA) recorded by the police u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such fact is not recorded therein. Further, this witness admits it to be correct that in the latest panchayat elections, which were contested by mother-inlaw of the prosecutrix, he had supported her. He is thus an interested person. Even otherwise his testimony does not inspire confidence. He lives in a different village. There was no occasion for him to be present at the spot. Further, this witness states that he took the prosecutrix to her house after the incident and then left from there. Now, why is it that he did not wait for the husband of the prosecutrix to come? Also, why is it that he did not bring the commission of the crime to the notice of the neighbours/other relatives? Why is it that he did not straightway inform the police about the incident? Why is it that he did not inform about the incident to the other members of the family? All these questions remained unanswered by this witness.

Coming to the testimony of Shri Tara Chand (PW-2), we find that his version stands materially contradicted by the prosecutrix herself. Whereas this witness states that he had taken the prosecutrix to the Police Post on 5th August, 2004, i.e. the day following the date of incident, but however as per version of the prosecutrix she and her husband had gone to the Police Post on the day of the incident itself at about 8 p.m. and reported the matter. Though this witness has denied the suggestion put by the accused to him, to the effect that he had given beatings with a stick to the prosecutrix, as a result of which she sustained injuries on the front part of her body, but we find this defence of the accused to be probable for the reason that it is duly corroborated by medical evidence and testimony of the doctor. According to the accused, this witness suspected that prosecutrix was allegedly having illicit relationship with him, on account of which she was given beatings with a stick.

Thus, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove the charged offences.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.