State of H.P. vs Ramesh Kumar

R.B. Misra, J.—The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 22.1.2000, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 18-ST/7 of 1999, u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondent, in reference to FIR No. 64/98 dated 16.8.1998.

The prosecution case is that on 16.8.1998 at about 9.00 A.M., the victim/prosecutrix wife of Suresh Kumar had gone to the fields to cut grass in village Banah-Ki-Ser. The accused-respondent, who is the elder brother of the husband of the victim/prosecutrix (Jeth), on seeing the victim/prosecutrix alone, caught hold of her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her after opening her salwar. The victim/prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, but the accused-respondent put his hand on her mouth. Accordingly, report was lodged. The victim/prosecutrix was medically examined and her clothes were taken into possession.

After investigation, the accused was charged for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses. Whereas, the accused through his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case.

PW.1 is the victim/prosecutrix (name not given), PW.8 Dr. Archana Gupta has examined the victim/prosecutrix, PW.2 Suresh Kumar, husband of the victim/prosecutrix, PW.3 Chamel Singh, father-in-law of the victim/prosecutrix, PW.4 Arjun Singh, Pujari, PW.5 HC Shanti Swaroop, PW.7 Constable Brij Mohan, had however, not supported the prosecution case.

PW.1 the victim/prosecutrix has endeavoured to support the prosecution case, whereas PW.8 Dr. Archana Gupta has admitted that if the prosecutrix had been forcibly raped at such a place then she was bound to receive injuries on her thighs, lebia majora and lebia minora and the injuries on her back, but when she had examined the prosecutrix on 17.8.1998, she had not found any such injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. In the medico legal certificate, Ex.PF, also it is specifically mentioned that the prosecutrix had no such injury on her person.

On analysis of the testimony of PW.1 the victim/prosecutrix, we find that prosecution case becomes doubtful, as Dr. Archana Gupta (PW.8) has not indicated any alive spermatozoa on the person of the victim/prosecutrix after sexual intercourse.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that none of the prosecution witnesses have seen the occurrence and the victim/prosecutrix a major married lady was habitual of sexual intercourse and no injury on her person was noticed by PW.8 Dr. Archana Gupta, in these circumstances, testimony of the victim/prosecutrix itself is not inspiring confidence as the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix is full of contradiction to the medical report.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and the learned Trial Court has carefully analyzed the prosecution witnesses and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged.