State of M.P. vs Hari Narayan and Others

Heard the application for leave to appeal. This is an application u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the Petitioner/state seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.1.2011 u/s 450, 376, 294 and 323 of IPC, 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC ST (PA) ACT and 25(1) of the Arms Act passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST) Guna in Special Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2007.

Perused the impugned judgment and record.

The case of prosecution in brief, is that prosecutrix (PW2) lodged a report at PS Piprai Ex. P/3 on 13.12.2006 to the effect that the accused Harinarayan after entering her house committed rape with her at about 7 to 8 PM on 6.12.2006 and as he was seen by her husband while coming out of her house, a quarrel ensued between them. Thereafter, Harinaryan and his companions hurled filthy abuses at him pertaining to his caste and beat him due to which, he suffered injuries in his ear, stomach, back and left leg. Somehow, he was rescued by Rajjaulal and thereafter, the accused persons took him to police station at the point of katta in order to implicate him in a false case. The said FIR was registered at Crime No. 206 of 2006 for offence punishable u/s 376, 456, 294, 323, 506B and 34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xii) of the SC ST Act. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. During investigation, the accused were arrested and statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of JMFC from where, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charges were framed against the accused/respondent Harinarayan u/s 450, 376(1), 294, and 323 of IPC and 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) SC ST Act and u/s 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act and other accused/respondents u/s 294 and 323 read with section 34 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC ST Act. During trial, statements of fourteen witnesses were got recorded on behalf of the prosecution. By the impugned judgment, the accused were acquitted as stated herein above.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

The question that arises here for consideration is, whether the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court are based on proper reasonings?

As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix (PW2), aged 25 years, deposing in para 1 to 5 of her statement has stated that when she was in her house at about 7 to 8 pm the accused Hari Narayan entered her house and forcibly raped her. At that time, her daughter Neelu, aged 10 to 12 years was at home. The veracity of the prosecutrix''s statement has been examined in depth in para 13 to 26 of the impugned judgment. The learned court having considered the entire circumstances of the case has disbelieved the statement of (PW2). The reasons recorded by the learned trial court appear to be well founded as the alleged incident has been reported to have occurred on 6.12.06 whereas the FIR EX. P/3 was lodged after 7 days I.e. 13.12.06. In this regard no proper explanation has been tendered by the prosecution about the inordinate delay of a week in lodging the report at the concerned police station.

Moreover a typed application dated 10.12.06 Ex-P/4 was given to S.P. Ashok Nagar, thereafter the case was registered against the accused on 13.12.06. On perusal of the Ex. P/4 it is evident that the application might have been got prepared by a law-0. knowing person.

It is worth noting that the accused Hari Narayn lodged a report against the prosecutrix''s husband, Santosh on 6.12.06 at police station Piprai vide Ex. P/19 regarding his quarrel with husband of prosecutrix Santosh in which husband of the prosecutrix holding a country made pistol (katta) in his hand manhandled him with lathi. After the said report was lodged by Hari Narayan the alleged story of rape has been fabricated.

The prosecutrix, aged 25 years was physically strong-built up lady. As per her statement, if it were to be believed that the alleged rape had been committed forcibly by the accused Hari Narayan, there would certainly have been some injuries on her body or some marks of struggle and at the same time the accused Hari Narayan too would have received some injuries on his body but this has not been found in this case.

No medical report has been produced on record by the prosecution for ascertaining that the sexual intercourse had actually happened. Further, it has not been confirmed that the sperm of the accused Hari Narayan were found on the clothes or in vaginal swab of the prosecutrix.

The alleged incident has been reported to have occurred at about 7 to 8 PM and as per the prosecutrix''s statement her daughter Neelu, aged 11 years (PW4) was at home and in her very presence the alleged rape was committed. The said story seems to be incredible in view of the aforesaid facts.

The witness Neelu (PW4) deposing in para 4 of her statement has stated that there are four or five adjoining houses namely that of Rajjua, Suresh, Kalyan and others. Further it was stated by the prosecutrix (PW2) that she had screamed when she was caught forcibly by the accused. The said statement also does not appear to be convincing as if the alleged incident had happened at 7 to 8 PM the accused would have been noticed by somebody present in the vicinity. In this case, the prosecution has failed to produce any persons living in neighbourhood for corroborating the alleged incident.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned trial court appears to have committed no mistake in disbelieving the statement of the prosecutrix (PW2), her daughter Neelu (PW4) and her husband Santosh (PW5).

Having considered the recorded evidence and facts, this court comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground and merit to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Court. The conclusion drawn by the learned court in acquitting the accused is justified. Therefore, the leave for filing of the appeal is not granted. This petition stands rejected.