State of Uttarakhand vs Jarnail Singh

Alok Singh, J.—This is a State appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 17.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2004 whereby respondent was acquitted of the charge punishable u/s 375/511 IPC. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that PW1 has lodged a report on 04.05.2002 with police station Laksar, Haridwar stating that informant had gone to his relative''s place and when he came to his house, his elder daughter Sunita (PW5), younger daughter Chandra Kala (PW9) and her wife Smt. Surti told him that on 01.05.2002 his younger daughter Chandra Kala had gone to the shop of Masoom to purchase some household articles at 11.30 a.m. and when she reached near the house of Ashok, son of Harphool Gujjar, Jarnail Singh, son of Ashok, immediately, caught her and had taken her in his room, after putting his hand on her mouth; he had bolted the room from inside and tried to rape her; meanwhile, Sonu and Sachin could watch from the half opened window of the room that respondent Jarnail Singh was trying to rape Chandra Kala; Sonu and Sachin, immediately, told the incident to PW5 Sunita and PW6 Satbeer; having received the information about the incident from Sonu and Sachin, Sunita and Satbeer immediately rushed to the room of Jarnail Singh and started making a noise, meanwhile, Jarnail Singh, after opening the door of the room managed to escape from the spot.

Having investigated the matter, police submitted a charge-sheet against Jarnail Singh for the offence punishable u/s 376/511 IPC.

From the side of prosecution, PW1 Mamraj, PW2 Zahid, PW3 Sachin, PW4 Sonu, PW5 Sunita, PW6 Satbeer, PW7 Ramchandra, PW8 Roshan Lal, PW9 Chandra Kala, PW10 Ummed Singh were produced and examined.

Learned trial Judge having considered the entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the prosecution story and ultimately, exonerated the respondent from the charge levelled against him vide judgment under appeal.

We are conscious about the fact that in an appeal or revision against the judgment of acquittal, appellate or revisional court should not lightly interfere with the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court, even if two views are possible. The Superior Court may interfere with the judgment of acquittal, only when the Superior Court comes to a definite conclusion that judgment of acquittal is shocking in the facts and circumstances of the case, or the Superior Court finds that trial court fails to appreciate the evidence in right perspective or if judgment impugned is found to be totally perverse or if the Superior Court comes to a conclusion that trial court denied fair opportunity to adduce evidence on the ground uncalled for.

In the present case, prosecutrix was not medically examined. Not only this, prosecutrix has not stated in her statement that respondent had ever tried to take off her clothes or her clothes were torn by him. PW1 informant has stated, on oath, that he received a telephonic call from his house about the incident on 01.05.2002 itself and after reaching home, he had lodged the report on 04.05.2002. Considering the above circumstances, the trial court was absolutely correct while observing that statement of PW1 is not reliable. Father of a young girl, having received such telephone call, in normal circumstances, would not have taken so much time in reaching his house and reporting the matter to the police.

We, too, are of the view that delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained properly. Statement of mother of prosecutrix also does not inspire confidence, rather her statement is sufficient to demolish the prosecution story. She has stated that there was a dense population in nearby area of house of Jarnail, however, after hearing the hue and cry, no one had turned up. She has further stated that even the prosecutrix had not received even abrasions.

On the other hand, from the side of defence, DW1 Masoom and DW2 Irshad were examined. Masoom has stated that his shop was a half km. away from the house of prosecutrix. He has further stated that in between the house of prosecutrix and shop of Masoom, there were two shops owned by Karanwal and Seetu. He has further stated that prosecutrix never came to his shop for purchasing purpose on 01.05.2002, as his shop was closed on 01.05.2002 and on that day, he had gone to main market to purchase sugar.

Having considered the entire material available on record, we are unable to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned trial Judge. Even a case, punishable u/s 354 IPC is not made out against the respondent. Therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for information along with lower court record.