1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT State of Raj. Vs. Tej Karan @ Tej Pal & Ors. S.B.CR. APPEAL NO. 580/1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT :::: 4th August, 2008. P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. BK Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. None present for the accused respondents. BY THE COURT: Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 28th May, 1997, whereby the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Baran has acquitted the accused respondent Tej Karan @ Tej Pal in the offences under Section 376, 323, 452/34, 323/34, of IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) (12) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1989') 2. The prosecution story succinctly runs as under: That on 11th December 1995 at about 2.30 pm, the prosecutrix (name withheld) went from her house to throw dung at kheri. The accused Tej Karan was coming from opposite direction. Having found her alone, the accused Tej Karan 2 forcibly caught hold of her and dragged her to the field of mustard. She cried but he gaged her mouth. It is alleged that the accused made her to lie on the ground and forcibly ravished her. The prosecutrix struggled but the accused did not let her loose. He liberated her only after fulfilling his wild lust. Having heard the cries of the prosecutrix, her brother Mahaveer Meena rushed to the spot. He tried to chase the accused Tej Karan but he hit her brother with stone and fled away. The prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother. It is further alleged that after half an hour of this incident Bhanwar Lal, Sohan lal, Chhotu lal and Tej Pal resident of Mandla came to their house abusing them. They all entered in their house and gave a beating by fists, legs and clubs and further threatened to kill them. The prosecutrix submitted a written report Ex.P/1 in Police Station Atru, whereupon the FIR was lodged and investigation commenced. 3. During Investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, the site plan Ex.P/4 was prepared, the injured were got medically examined, the prosecutrix was medically examined so as to ascertain the commission of offence of rape, the accused Tej Karan was arrested vide memo Ex.P/4, necessary memos were drawn and after usual investigation, the accused respondents were sent for trial. 3 4. All the accused respondents except Tej Karan were indicted for the charges under Section 323, 452, 452/34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (12) and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Act 1989. The accused Tej Karan was also charged for the offence of having committed rape upon the prosecutrix in addition to above offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. The accused respondents in their explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C claimed innocence. The accused examined two witnesses in defence. On completion of trial, all the four accused persons were acquitted as indicated hereinabove. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the accused respondents, hence heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and with his assistance scanned the material available on record. 6. The crucial question springing for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the accused Tej Karan committed the rape on the prosecutrix forcibly without her consent and against her will? 7. As per medico-legal report Ex.P/8 with regard to rape the situation is found thus: 4 “Injury- No External & Internal Injury seen. Cloths- Blouse and Petticoat normal,no tearing and dirty with Blood & Semen stains. Injury- No any injury seen on Breast and genitalia, small linear Abrasion two to three in number are present on dorsal surface of Lt hand. No struggle injury seen on buttocks, thighs and back” 8. Now turning to the statements of the prosecutrix deposed before the Court, it is found that the prosecutrix went to throw garbage. When she was going, the accused Tej Karan caught hold of her hand on the way and took her to the field of mustard forcibly. She cried but the accused gagged her mouth and made her to lie on the ground. He lifted her Ghaghra and cuddled her. The accused with his one hand opened his trousers and thereafter penetrated his penis into her vagina. Having heard screams, his uncle, aunt and brother came there running but the accused fled away from there. His brother exclaimed as to what was he doing, whereupon the accused hit his brother with the stone and fled away. In her cross-examination she has admitted that in both the families of Kanaihya Kaka and Bhanwar Lal, there has been an animosity for the last 6-7 years. Neither they greet each other nor they are on talking terms. She has further admitted that the accused persons and her brother Mahaveer are also having 5 inimical relations. Mahaveer happens to be the son of Kanaihya Kaka but he is not her real brother. 9. In her searching cross examination she has admitted that her brother Mahaveer had already reported the matter in police. Thereafter, he came and took her also to Police Station where the police seized her Petticoat. Police recorded her statements that day only. She has further stated that whatever statements she has given before the Court, they are as per the dictation of his Kanaihya Kaka. 10. PW/8 Mahaveer in his deposition has stated that he was studying in his room and having heard the screams of Sugna, he went to the direction from where the screams were coming. There, he found that the accused Tej Karan was lying upon Sugna Bai. He has further stated that Sugna Bai had been wearing no clothes(nude) and Tej Karan was lying penetrating his penis into her vagina. When the accused Tej Karan saw him, he immediately got up and ran away. He chased away the accused but the accused hit his head with stone. Thereafter, Sugna Bai went to her father. He also accompanied her. That time, she was weeping. 6 11. There is no other occular evidence with regard to the rape on record. Having reflected over the evidence of both PW/1 Shakuntala and PW/8 Mahaveer, it is found that their evidence is laden with contradictions in material particulars. Neither it is recorded in written report Ex.P/1 that PW/8 Mahaveer witnessed the accused Tej Karan raping the prosecutrix nor PW/1 Shakuntala has deposed that the accused ran away from the spot and before that her brother Mahaveer appeared on the spot. Secondly, the prosecutrix has stated that when the accused made her to lie on the ground where the crop of mustard was standing, the hard stems pierced in her back as a result of which the blood started coming but neither the injuries on the back have been found by PW/9 Dr. RC Meena who has prepared the medico legal report EX.P/8 nor any mark of violence has been recorded therein. Thus, it emerges from the statements of the PW/1 Shakuntala and PW/8 Mahaveer that both of them have exaggerated their statements, made improvement before the Court in their early statement given before the police. The inconsistency in their statements is apparently visible which leaves an impression of their statements to be concocted. 12. It is an admitted fact that both the complainant and accused party are on inimical terms. The manner in which the prosecutrix has 7 narrated the incident in written report Ex.P/1 and the way in which she has crafted the incident of rape and further the way in which PW/8 Mahaveer has shamelessly painted the picture of coitus blemishing his sister's reputation compels the court to hold the whole prosecution story to be manipulated, manoeuvered and false. Both the prosecutrix and PW/8 Mahaveer seems to have crafted the concocted story of rape deftly. The learned Special Judge has critically examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses in great details. The learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of PW/1 Shakuntala and PW/8 Mahaveer and observed that neither the offence under Section 376 of IPC is proved nor the offence under Section 452 and 323 of IPC are proved. Not only this, the prosecution has also failed to evince that the accused persons intentionally insulted by saying “Maro Madarchodo Mieentao Ko” with intent to humiliate those who belonged to scheduled caste in any place within public view. The prosecution has not produced any such evidence which may prove that the accused intended to humiliate them in public view. 13. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge of rape against the accused Tej Karan and other offences against rest of the accused persons. There is no evidence which may fasten the guilt upon the accused. The judgment 8 of the trial Court is cogent, just and proper and it does not suffer from any infirmity. I am in unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court and it calls for no interference. 13. For these reasons, the State appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 28th May, 1997 is confirmed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. PCG