IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.82 of 1999 Decided on: 20th May, 2010 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Prem Lal …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 22.9.1998 delivered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions Trial No.51- S/7 of 1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, PW/4 is a married woman and her husband is PW/5. According to the prosecutrix, on 3.7.1994, she had gone to the Ghasni to fetch grass for her cattle. After she had cut the grass and was coming back with a head- load of grass to her house, the accused met her at a short distance from the Ghasni. He caught hold of her hair and dragged her due to which the load of grass fell down. She raised a hue and cry but none came to help her. The accused threatened her that she should keep quiet. According to the prosecutrix, she told the accused that he should be ashamed of what he is doing since she was his aunt in relation. However, this did not deter the accused who forcibly made the prosecutrix to lie down on the grass; broke the string of her salwar; removed the salwar and thereafter forcibly subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix stated that she made every possible effort to free herself from the clutches of the accused. She also had a scuffle with the accused and during this scuffle, her ear-ring and nose pin fell down at the place of occurrence. After raping the prosecutrix, …3… the accused fled away from the spot. The prosecutrix thereafter came home alongwith the load of grass. In the evening, she narrated the entire incident to her husband. Since it was dark, they did not go to the police station. Next day, in the morning, they went to the police station, Boileauganj and lodged the complaint which resulted in FIR No.PW1/A. After the FIR was lodged, the accused was got medically examined in the D.D.U hospital at Shimla by Dr.S.Kumar, PW/7. Thereafter, the statements of other witnesses are recorded and investigation was done. After completion of investigation, the accused was summoned. He was charged with having committed the offence detailed here-in-above. He pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. After trial, the accused was acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. 3. The prosecutrix and her husband have fully supported the prosecution. No doubt, the law is well settled that the conviction in the case of rape can be made only on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and her testimony does not require corroboration in each and every case but this can be …4… done only when the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. If the statement is full of holes and untruths then obviously, no reliance on such a statement can be made. 4. In the present case, as noted above, the prosecutrix has virtually repeated whatever she had stated in the complaint and which has been noted by us above as the story of the prosecution. There is one material contradiction between what was got recorded in the FIR and what she stated in Court. According to this witness, she had never stated to the police that the nara of her salwar was broken. This fact is recorded in the FIR but in Court, this witness states that the nara was opened and not broken. The version of the prosecution is that PW/6 Bal Krishan had seen the accused running away from the spot clad only in his underwear and carrying his pant on his shoulder. According to the prosecution, PW/6 then helped the prosecutrix who was crying. 5. Bal Krishan while appearing in the witness box as PW/6 denied that anything had happened in his presence. According to him, he was only associated by the police with the recovery next day. This is the first reason to doubt the testimony of the prosecutrix. …5… 6. According to the prosecutrix, she was raped in the Ghasni but as per the site plan, she was raped near the field of one Dharam Chand. This is the second major contradiction between her statement and the evidence on record. It is obvious that this contradiction is material because the police has tried to show that one gold ear- ring and nose pin were recovered from the field of Dharam Singh. If the prosecutrix was raped in the Ghasni, as claimed by her, which is at a fairly large distance from the field of Dharam Chand, the question of these ornaments being recovered in the field of Dharam Singh does not arise. 7. Another important factor is that PW/6 Bal Krishan has not even supported the prosecution story with regard to the recovery of ornaments of the prosecutrix. According to him, he was standing at a long distance on the path when the police went to the fields of Dharam Chand and made the recoveries. Therefore, he is not a witness to the recovery itself. 8. The medical evidence also does not support the version of the prosecutrix. She is an adult woman. Even according to her own version, she had a scuffle with the accused. However, no marks of injury except minor …6… abrasions were found on the person of the prosecutrix. Even on the person of the accused, only one minor abrasion on the neck was found. If the prosecutrix had struggled and fought with the accused, there would have been some marks of scratches etc. on the person of the accused and there would have been some injuries on her person also. The doctors had clearly stated that the abrasions could be caused due to normal agricultural operation. 9. In view of the contradictions pointed out above, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in holding that it is unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned Trial Court. The appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 20th May, 2010 (Rajiv Sharma) (m) Judge …7…