1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Jaya Kumari Malawat V/s. Bhawani Singh & anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1406/09 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401of Criminal Procedure Code Date of Judgment :: 09.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Jitendra Singh Tanwar for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent, Bhawani Singh, for offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and for offences under Sections 3(1)(12) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Smt. Kanta, filed a complaint that her daughter, Jaya Kumari, had gone to deposit the money in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Devli, but she did not return. A search was made. It was informed that she is in the illegal custody of Bhawani Singh. The learned Judicial Magistrate sent the said complaint to the Police Station, Sarvar for investigation. On the complaint, the 2 police lodged a FIR, FIR No.66/08, against Mr. Bhawani Singh Rawat for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused person for offences under Sections 366, 376 and 120-B IPC and under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ ST Act. The prosecution in support of its case, examined seventeen witnesses and exhibited fourteen documents. The statement of accused person was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that the prosecution evidence is false, but he does not want to produce any witness in defence. However, he did submit four documents. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 19.06.2009 acquitted the accused person from offences under Sections 366, 376 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Jitendra Singh Tanwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has misread the entire evidence. Firstly, the prosecutrix in both her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and in her testimony clearly states that she had been threatened by the accused. Because of the said threat, she did not reveal the repeated rapes that she was subjected to. Moreover, in her statement as well as in her testimony before the Court, she has alleged that the respondent had subjected her repeatedly to rape. Instead of believing her testimony, the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. This Court has perused the testimony of the prosecutrix. According to her testimony, repeatedly the accused would threaten her and called her to his room; under threat, she would proceed to his room and would subject herself to rape. Considering the fact that the prosecutrix is major, considering the fact that she and the accused would converse with each other over phone, considering the fact that she would repeatedly go to his room, considering the fact that she was pregnant with a child, these facts make an allegation of rape highly improbable. For, her behavior is against normal human conduct. A woman who has been subjected to rape would generally not go back to the room of the rapist on his beck and call. Moreover, a woman who has suffered pregnancy due to rape would not carry the fetus for thirty-two weeks. After all, generally a woman would not have any emotional attachment to a fetus who is a product of a rape. Lastly, it is inconceivable that a woman would go to the room of her alleged rapist and would subject herself repeatedly to rape. Considering the fact that both the prosecutrix and the accused happened to be major, considering the fact that they happened to be from two different castes, considering the fact that the prosecutrix was pregnant, the 4 possibility that the prosecutrix has falsely alleged rape cannot be ruled out. There is high degree of probability that in order to save her own reputation, and the honour of the family, the prosecutrix claims that she has been subjected to rape. Looking to the broad outline of prosecution's case, considering the testimony of the prosecutrix, the learned Judge was legally justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. Hence, there is neither any illegality, nor perversity in the impugned judgment. In the result, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/