IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2001 Old number. Criminal Revision No. 377 of 1998 Gurdeep Singh. …..…..Revisionist. Versus State of U.P. ..….Opposite Party. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Present revision under sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal of Procedure was filed by the revisionist challenging the conviction order dated 14.10.1993 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Nainital in ST No. 161 of 1991 in case crime no. 177 of 1991 under section 376 IPC, P.S. – Sitarganj, District – Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar) by which learned Trial Court found the accused guilty of offence under section 376 and awarded 7 years RI and Rs. 5000/- fine. And judgment and order dated 07.01.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in criminal appeal no. 32 of 1993 thereby confirming the judgment of Trial Court. As per prosecution story on 01.05.1991 at about 5.00 p.m. Smt. Haruli Devi wife of Vishan Singh was cutting the grass, Gurdeep Singh came and caught Haruli Devi and got her fell down and committed rape on her. 2 Thereafter, Haruli Devi came on the road and fell there unconscious. First Information Report was on 01.05.1991 by Haruli Devi herself. After investigation chargesheet was submitted. Case was committed to the court of Sessions. In the trial PW 1 – Haruli Devi – prosecutrix, PW 2 – Bhupal Singh Rawat, PW 3 – Malkeet Singh, PW 4 – Siya Ram Shukla, PW 5 – Dr. Sudha Rani, PW 6 – Investigating Officer Gajendra Singh were examined. Learned Trial Court found that medical report of the prosecutrix Haruli Devi is corroborated by other witnesses. As per medical report and statement of PW 5 there were injuries mark on the body and private part of Haruli Devi. Medical report and statement of Doctor prove that rape was committed with PW 1 – Haruli Devi. Learned Trial Court discussed every peace of evidence and found accused guilty of commission of rape and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 7 years. Fine of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed on the accused with the direction if fine is not paid accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for the period of three months. Learned Trial Court further directed out of Rs. 5000 fine Rs. 4000/- be paid to the prosecutrix. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while hearing the appeal re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed the judgment / order of the Trial Court. PW 1 Smt. Haruli Devi is the complainant and prosecturix of the said incident. She in her evidence has proved the First Information Report of the aforesaid 3 incident as Exhibit Ka 1 and the petticoat and dhoti worn by her at the time of the said incident as exhibit ka-2. In the cross examination this complainant has not produced any self contradictory evidence on the basis of which the case of prosecution could not be proved. This witness has proved exhibit Ka 1 and Ka 2 without any doubt. In the cross examination this witness has also proved the contents of the First Information Report. PW 2 – Bhopal Singh Rawat - the scriber of report has also confirmed the statement that on 01.05.1991 two boys called him, consequently, he went to the house of Smt. Haruli Devi – prosecutrix and on her request scribed the report and read over the same to her and took thumb impression of her on the said report and put his signature on the same as well. This witness in his cross examination has also not produced any self contradictory evidence, on the basis of which the prosecution story appears to be dubious. Though in the cross examination it has been said that at the time when he reached the house of Smt. Haruli Devi at about 7.00 in the evening 8 – 10 persons were gathered in which Jagtar Singh and Mohan Singh etc. were also there. PW 3 – Malkeet Singh in his statement has stated that on 01.05.1991 he along with Tej Singh and Jeet Singh had gone to Sitarganj to purchase construction material by his tractor. At about 6.00 clock when he reached near the farm of Sharmaji at Badi Pulia, he found smt. Haruli Devi lying off road, and there were blood stained on dhoti and petticoat of Smt. Haruli Devi and she told him that Gurdeep Singh had committed rape on her. He brought her to her house by his tractor where she got the report 4 prepared. Thereafter, he took Smt. Haruli Devi and other villagers to Police Station – Sitarganj. In this manner, this witness was present at the time when Smt. Haruli Devi lodged the First Information Report. This witness also not produced any self contradictory evidence on the basis of which the whole prosecution story appears to be doubtful. Instead the evidence of this witness gives adequate force in proving the incident. PW 5 – Dr. Smt. Sudha Rani in her statement has stated that Smt. Haruli Devi was medically examined on 02.05.1991 at Women Hospital, Sitarganj and she was brought by lady constable namely Kshati Devi. On external examination she found blood stained on the petticoat and dhoti of Smt. Haruli Devi and she was having problem in walking. On internal examination, she found dry blood stained on pubic hair as well as blood spot on internal part of thigh. There was one inch abrasion at the right side of Levia Major and Levia Minor of private part. Abrasion of 1 cm present in the Vaginal Orpheus and lubrication of mucus in vagina. On external examination, she found the breasts of Smt. Haruli Devi to be normal and also found that her manses had stopped five years ago and her mental condition was normal. The teeth of right side were found 5/4 and the teeth of left side were found 5/5 and she also said that intercourse has been done with Smt. Haruli Devi, the marks of which were found at the vagina of Smt. Haruli Devi. She has proved Exhibit-Ka-5 stating that the medical report is in her writing and bears her signature. This witness has also not produced any self contradictory evidence, on the basis of which the prosecution story appears to be unreliable. 5 Instead in her cross examination this witness has also stated that on account of injuries found on her vagina, it can be said that rape has been committed on Smt. Haruli Devi. This witness has again clarified that the said incident had taken place on 1.5.1991 at about 6.00 p.m. and on 30.4.1992 due to mistake she had stated the time of the incident as 6.00 a.m. in his examination. This Court while exercising power under sections 397 and 401 Code of Criminal of Procedure is not required to re-appreciate the evidence. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction does not sit as Appellate Court over the judgments passed by the Courts below. This court, while exercising Revisional jurisdiction, can interfere with the judgment of Lower Court only with it is noticed that court below has committed such illegality or procedural irregularity which has vitiated the entire trial or court below has illegally shut down important peace of evidence or any important evidence escaped from the notice of the court below or judgment impugned is perverse and bad in law. I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the both the judgment passed by the courts below. It is not a case where any important evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court or courts below have committed any procedural irregularity which vitiates the proceedings. In view of the above, there is no force in the revision, hence, revision is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) 08.12.2009 SKS