State of Rajasthan vs Phool Chand and Others

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—This criminal appeal Is directed against the judgment dated 31st of October, 1995 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, whereby the accused-respondents namely; Phool Chand and Chhote Lal @ Ram Singh have been acquitted in the offences under Sections 365, 366, 367 and 323 of IPC and the accused-respondents namely; Badri, Ramesh, Jagdish and Lahri have been acquitted in the offences under Sections 365, 366, 376, 368 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

The nub of the prosecution story unfolded by PW-3 Ramhet is, as under:

That on 24th August, 1994 at about 7-8 AM, the complainant''s uncle Rewad Ram (PW-1) and aunt Smt. Mangi Devi (PW-2) went to Alwar for the treatment of his aunt. No sooner did they reach near the Railway crossing at Malakhera, Jagdish, Chhote Lal and Phool Chand residents of Bandikui (Dausa) came there along with 4-5 other persons. They all restrained them from going. They made his uncle Rewad Ram and aunt Smt. Mangi Devi to sit in a Jeep and took towards Bandikui. While going they had alarmed the complainant that they will set Rewad Ram and Smt. Mangi Bai free only when their man is given back to them. The complainant apprised with this incident his father. Thereafter he along with his father went to the Police Station Malakheda and submitted a written-report Ex. P/1 whereupon the Police lodged F.I.R. Ex. P/12 and commenced investigation.

The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, prepared site-plan Ex. P/11, recovered Smt. Mangi Devi vide memo Ex. P/8 and Rewad Ram vide memo Ex. P/9, prepared site-plan of the place of recovery Ex. P/6, arrested accused Chhote Lal alias Ram Lal vide memo Ex.P/13, Ramesh Chand vide memo - Ex. P/l4, and after usual investigation filed a charge-sheet against the accused-respondents in the Court.

The accused-respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences who denied the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case. All the accused-respondents have claimed innocence in their statements u/s 313, Cr.P.C. On completion of trial, the accused-respondents were not found guilty of the charges and thus, acquitted, as indicated hereinabove.

Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, learned Counsel for the accused respondents and with their assistance scanned the prosecution evidence as also the relevant material available on the record.

Vide Medical Examination Report Ex. P/16 of Smt. Mangi Devi, PW/15, Dr. Mahendra Kumar Gupta found the injuries on her body as under:

Blackish bruise - 3cm x 1cm on right side cheek and lower lip near and below right angle of mouth.

No marks of any strain or external injury detected on lower part of abdomen, pubic region and inner aspect of both thighs.

No marks of any injury on the private parts, hymen was old torn.

PW-15 Dr. Mahendra Kumar Gupta while examining the prosecutrix Smt. Mangi Devi recorded the history as per her narration. He has stated on oath before the Court that as per prosecutrix, Smt. Mangi Devi and her husband were abducted on 24th of August, 1994 at about 8.00 AM by 5-7 persons and taken forcibly in a Jeep to Bandikui. In the night of 24th of August, 1994, Lahri, Jagdish and Ramesh ravished her one after another in succession forcibly against her will. On 25th of August, 1994 the Police recovered them. Since then, she has not taken any bath. She has two daughters and one son and lives with her husband. Dr. Gupta, further stated that he did not find any sign of rape having committed on her body.

Turning to the statement of PW-2 Smt. Mangi Devi recorded by the Court, it is found that she was taking her husband to Alwar for treatment who was suffering from fever when they reached near the Railway crossing, Malakhera, Ramhet, the son of her husband''s elder brother joined them. Meanwhile, one Jeep of green colour arrived there, wherein 4-5 persons namely; Jagdish, Ramesh, Badri Prasad and Lahri were present. They all alighted from the Jeep and assaulted upon them, it is alleged that the accused Lehri caught-hold of her hands, Jagdish gripped her legs and Ramesh caught-hold her back and dragged her into the Jeep. Her husband was also made to sit in the same Jeep. Ramhet fled away from there on account of fear. On the way, her husband became serious so they were first taken to the Hospital where they got his treatment. The witnesses has further stated that they came out of the hospital and took another road to reach at bus stand. They concealed themselves inside the bus but inside the bus, 3-4 persons were already sitting, who got them down from the bus and again, forcibly put them into the same Jeep. One Chhote Lal took them to his house at Bandikui. Finally in the night, they were taken to village Panditpura and till night they remained at Panditpura. It was raining heavily. There was one hut, wherein both of them were detained. The prosecutrix has further stated that at about 4.00 in the morning Jagdish, Ramesh and Lahri came there and they dragged her to one field of ''Bajra where all the three accused-persons ravished her one after another in succession after penetrating their penis into her vagina. This act they did without her consent and against her will.

In her searching cross-examination the manner in which the witness has depicted the incident per se seems to be improbable. She has further stated that she sustained injuries on her wrist and jaw. Her all the clothes were torn. She became unconscious and thereafter, she was brought back to her husband in the hut in unconscious state only. When police came they all fled away from there.

The statements given by the prosecutrix before the Court are altogether different from the history she narrated before PW15 Dr. Mahendra Kumar Gupta. There are contradictions on material particulars and the story is so inconsistent which leads the court to infer her statements to be untrustworthy in toto. It seems to be improbable that a lady is ravished forcibly against her will by three - persons one after another in succession and she does not sustain any injury on her private parts nor any inflammation on her genitals. This makes the evidence of the prosecutrix wholly unreliable.

The whole prosecution case rests solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix PW2 Smt. Mangi Devi so far as the offence u/s 376, I.P.C. is concerned, but to prove the offences under Sections 365, 366, 368 and 323, I.P.C., the prosecution has examined PW-1 Rewad Ram, PW-2 Smt. Mangi Devi and PW-3 Ramhet.

Alarmingly, the prosecutrix reported before the doctor that she was ravished by Lahri, Jagdish and Ramesh in the night of 24th of August, 1994 at Bandikui, whereas in the Court she has stated on oath that she and her husband were taken to Village, Panditpura and they were detained in a hut. Thereafter at early hours Lahri, Jagdish and Ramesh came there and took her into the field of Bajra, wherein she was ravished by all the three. Again, in the written report Ex.P/1, it is scribbled that the complainant and his uncle PW/1 Rewad Ram were taking Mangi Devi (aunt) to Alwar for her treatment whereas PW/2 Smt. Mangi Devi states on oath before the Court that she was taking her husband Rewad Ram to Alwar for treatment who was suffering from fever. There are similar other material contradictions emerging in their statements which renders the whole prosecution case farce.

Having considered the whole prosecution and defence evidence, it is found that both the parties had inimical relations with each other for one or the other reason. The manner in which the story has been picturized by both PW/1 Rewad Ram and PW/2 Smt. Mangi Devi leads the Court to hold the prosecution case totally manoeuvered, manipulated and far from truth. Though the corroboration of the prosecutrix statement is not required when her statements are trustworthy but if the statements of the prosecutrix are not found to be trustworthy, then the corroboration from the independent witnesses and circumstantial evidence is required to convict the accused-persons. To bring home the guilt of the offence of rape, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-persons have committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will. The duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove the alleged offence. In the absence of a woman''s consent the essential feature of actus reus is rape, which is totally wanting in the instant case. The lower court has critically analysed and properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and has held that the complainant and the accusedpersons were on inimical terms. The statements of PW-1 Rewad Ram, PW-2 Smt. Mangi Devi and PW-3 Ramhet have been found; to be laden with contradictions on material particulars. The statements of the prosecutrix do not inspire confidence. In the light of material contradictions and inconsistencies creeping in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the defence version does not stand to be jettisoned so easily. Albeit PW-1 Rewad Ram, PW-2 Smt. Mangi Devi and PW-3 Ramhet have endeavoured to craft the concocted story of abduction and rape deftly, but the contradictions emerging on material particulars in their statements and inconsistencies have influenced the substratum of the case adversely, which shatters the whole prosecution case. The prosecution has miserably failed to fasten the guilt upon the accused-respondents.

The impugned judgment of the trial Court is found to be cogent, just, proper and well merited. It does not suffer from any infirmity. The finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial court is apt and just with which I fully concur and, to my firm view the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. For these reasons, the criminal appeal Tiled by the State being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.