XXXX vs Amit Bishnoi And Anr

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchhkula in Sessions case No.SC/001/2018 arising out of case FIR No.22 dated 10.05.2017 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Women, Disstrict Panchkula, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of charge under Section 376 IPC. The complainant,, being aggrieved by the acquittal, has preferred the present appeal.

The complainant, a widow with young children, lodged a complaint Exx.PW4/B, alleging that in the yeear 2015, she came into contact with responddents-accused through his paternal aunt Ruchi, who resided in the same neigghbourhood at Sector-25, Panchkula. It was alleged that the accused exprressed his desire to marry her, annd acting on that pretext, visited her house in the year 2016-2017. On such occasions, he forcibly established physical relations with her on the false assuraance of marriage.

The complainant stated that thee accused continued to visit her residence freequently and maintained sexual relations with her on the same pretext. It waas further alleged that the father and brother of the accused also visited her and assured her that the marriage would take place. On account of these relations, she became pregnant. Hoowever, when she informed the accused, he not only rebuked her but also threatened to eliminate her. The father and brother of the accused also refuused the marriage proposal and allegedly thrreatened her and her children with dire consequences if the matter was disclosed.

The complainant further alleged that due to this situation, she suffered menntal stress, developed gynaecoloogical problems, and ultimately, her pregnancy was aborted. On these allegations, FIR No.22 dated 10.05.2017 under Section 376 IPC (Ex.PW99/B) was recorded, and she was medico-legallly examined at Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula (Ex.PW4/A). After completion of investiggation, challan was filed, and charge underr Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT

In support of its case, the prossecution examined 12 witnesses including thhe complainant/prosecutrix (PPW4) and the Doctors. The prosecution also relied upon the FSL Report (Ex.PW11/A) and other documentary evidence.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wheerein he denied allegations annd set up a defence of false implication. He alleged that the prosecutrrix and her husband were his neighbours at one time. The complainant’s huusband Ram Charan had dealing with him in connection with a “Vita Boothh”, for which he had advanced Rs.1,50,000/- but when he demanded return of the money, a false case was registered aggainst him. The case examined DW1 Senior Constable Manjit Singh and DW2 ASI Gulshan Kumar in defeence, and proved documents DA and DB, relating to a previous complaint and a compromise between himself and the husband of the complainant.

The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It noticed conttradictions between successive complaints made by the complainant, the abssence of corroborative evidence, and the improbability of the version. Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

SUBMISSIOONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPPELLANT

Learned counsel for the complaainant-appellant has assailed the acquittal on the following grounds:-

(i) That the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused by relying on suurmises and conjectures, ignorinng the clinching and unrebutted evidence on record;

(ii) That the testimony of the prossecutrix (PW4) remained intact even after crross-examination and was duly supported by medical evidence,, which the leaarned trial Court failed to appreciate in its correct perspective;

(iii) That the finding of a “live-in reelationship” was contrary to the stand taken by the accused himself, who haad denied any such relationship; thereby the leearned trial Court had, in effect, invented a new defence case for the accused;

(iv) That the learned trial Court plaaced undue emphasis on minor inconsistenciies which are bound to occur inn such cases, particularly where sexual assaullt is concerned.

(v) That the acquittal therefore is illlegal and unsustainable, and this Court ought to have set aside the judgment of conviction under Section 376 IPC.

FINDINGS OF THIS COURT

Having considered the record annd the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The law is well-settled that inn an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court will not lightly interfere unless the learned trial Court’s judgment is perverse, manifestly illegal, and based on misappreciation of evidence.

In the present case, the core alleegation of the prosecutrix is that the accused established sexual relations withh her on the pretext of marriage,, and that this continued for about two years. Significantly, in her statement before the Court, she did not allege thaat the accused used force or compulsion. Her version rests entirely on thee alleged assurance of marriage. However, the record shows that in an earlier complaint (Ex.D/1) dated 28.02.2017 made by the complainant, there was no reference to any sexual relationship or promise of marriage. The only allegation therein was that the accused had been harassing her telephonicaally for six to seven months. It was only inn the subsequent complaint dated 14.03.2017 (Ex.PW4/B),, forming the basis of this FIR that allegations of sexual exploitation and live-in relationship surfaced. This material improvement casts serious doubt on the veracity of the later version of the prosecutrix.

Further, in a statement recordded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PB), the prosecutrix herself admitted that she had been in a live-in relationship with the accused for two years, but did not state that the accused had promiseed marriage or had forced her into sexual relations. This contradiction between her successive veersions makes her testimony unreliable.

The evidence also discloses thaat in certain medical documents (Ex.Pw4/A), the prosecutrix was shown as the wife of one Ram Charan. Though an explanation was attempted in cross-examination, the defence produced doocuments (Mark A, B and C) corroborating that she was cohabiting with Ram Charan till 2016. Thhe Investigating Officer (PW9) Inspector Geeeta also admitted during trial that the complainant had been living with Ram Charan without marriage tilll 2016.

The allegation by the complainaant that the father and brother of the accused visited her and threatened her is contradicted by the testimony of the Investigaating Officer that the accused had no aunt by name Ruchi, nor had his family members visited the residence of the complainant. This further underrmines the version of the prosecuutrix.

In cases involving sexual offences, while the sole testimony of the prosecutrrix can be sufficient if wholly reeliable, in the present matter, the versions of the complainant are inconsistent, improved upon, and contradicted by her own earlier complaints and medical records. Her evidence thus fails the test of credibility andd cannot form the sole basis for conviction.

In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court committed no error in acqquitting the respondent-accused. The prosecuttion has failed to establish, beyonnd reasonable doubt, that the maccused had sexual relations with the complainant on a false promise of marriage. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit.

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.