State of H.P. vs Chuni Lal and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 27.2.1997, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1995, whereby respondents-accused have been acquitted for the offences, under Sections 452, 376, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that the victim-prosecutrix (name not given), aged about 28 years was residing in village Jabli in a house on the upper side of the road along with her daughter aged about seven years. On 19.5.1995, at about mid-night when she was present in her house respondent-accused Chuni Lal came there and knocked the door of her house and when the door was not opened, respondent-accused started giving abuses and throwing stones at the door and forcibly entered into the room after breaking open the door and then forcibly committed the act of sexual assault upon her. Despite her resistance and endeavour victim-prosecutrix received injuries on her leg and cheeks and she also gave teeth bite to accused Chuni Lal but he succeeded in completing the sexual assault. However, respondent-accused Harbans Lal standing outside the room allegedly dragged respondent-accused Chuni Lal and took him forcibly in Truck No. HIB-1581, at about 2.00 A.M. However, matter was reported to the police in the morning and on investigation case under Sections 452, 376, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and case was committed to Sessions Court.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses, whereas the respondents-accused through their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.

According to the FIR Ext.PW-1/A, which was lodged by PW-1 Smt. Anita Devi on 20.5.1995, at about 2.00 P.M. in Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, one young man entered into her room and committed the act of sexual intercourse upon her and at about 2.00 A.M. that man was taken away by another man from her room. On her cries, Sheru alongwith 2/3 persons came at the spot and they also witnessed the occurrence. Her daughter was also present inside the room at the time of the occurrence. She further stated that she went to the house of PW-3 Shri Nikra Ram, Ward-Member and narrated the whole occurrence to him and on the next morning she went to Shri Ram Parkash (PW-9) Pardhan of Gram Panchayat and also disclosed him whole of the occurrence. She also stated that she did not know the names of accused persons. But while appearing in the Court as PW-1 she stated in her examination-in-chief that she lodged the FIR, which was signed by her but in cross-examination all of a sudden she changed her original stand and stated that she had given an application to the Dy. S.P. Bilaspur in his office at 10.00 A.M. on 20.5.1995 which was written by the petition-writer. She further stated that Dy. S.P. Bilaspur called one lady Constable and deputed her to accompany her (PW-1) to the hospital, where she was got medically examined before lunch-time and further stated that after medical examination, she went to the Police Station, Sadar. She has categorically, admitted that her statement was not recorded by the police during investigation except the complaint which she had made to the Dy. S.P. but the said complaint was not shown to her in the Court. Therefore, from her statement made in the Court, it stands established that she is not telling the truth in the Court by making inconsistent statements at two stages and both the statements being contradictory to each other. This contradiction is an improvement and, as such, is unworthy of credence to believe the prosecution version.

In FIR victim-prosecutrix has stated that she did not know the names of the persons, who had entered into her room, but in the cross-cross-examination she stated that she had come to know about the name of accused Chuni Lal, as his co-accused was calling him by this name at the time of occurrence. In case she was knowing the names of accused persons at the time of occurrence, why the said names were not disclosed by her at the time of lodging the report with the police or at the time when her statement was recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. According to the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix did not disclose the names of the accused persons during the investigation but her admission in the cross-examination that she was knowing the names of the accused persons when the offences was committed, clearly goes to show that she is telling a lie and her statement is studded with material inconsistencies with regard to the true version of the occurrence and on this account her statement, made in the Court, cannot be believed.

Victim-prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-8 Dr. J. Goswami and after medical examination it was found that no sexual assault was made on the victim-prosecutrix during the past 72 hours. As such, in view of the testimony of PW-8 the allegation of victim-prosecutrix that she was sexually assaulted on the night of 19.5.1995 stood falsified. The Salwar and shirt of the victim-prosecutrix were not produced to the police or Doctor on 20.5.1995. These clothes were produced by her at a later stage which means that the said evidence was planted by her in order to involve the respondents-accused persons falsely in this case. In the absence of corroboration of the version of the prosecution by the medical and other circumstantial evidence, the prosecution story appears to be doubtful.

The statement of PW-1 victim-prosecutrix suffers from basic infirmities and contradictions. In view of testimony of PW-1 victim-prosecutrix Chuni Lal, respondent-accused entered into her room at about 12.00 mid-night and he remained in her room for about two hours and she continued crying but her voice was not audible because other respondent-accused Harbans Singh had parked the truck nearby in a starting condition outside her room in the road and that respondent-accused Chuni Lal committed sexual assault after about 20 minutes from his entering into her room and he completed his act in 15 minutes and thereafter, he left the room at 2.00 A.M. According to PW-1 the door of the room was open and there was light in the room and her daughter was also sitting in the room and Sheru and other two persons were also witnessing the occurrence. The way PW-1 had narrated the occurrence that sexual assault cannot be believed because no prudent man would commit such an act under the way it has been narrated. Even, the victim-prosecutrix has also made many improvements in respect to her version as given in the FIR. The statement of the victim-prosecution, as such, is not inspiring confidence as no injury was noticed on her face and on her body in view of the testimony of PW-8.

On the analysis of material on record and prosecution witnesses, learned Sessions Judge rightly arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. There is no scope of any interference with the judgment of the acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed.

Bail bonds, furnished by the accused-respondents, are hereby discharged.