1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT State of Raj. Vs. Hameed S.B.CR. APPEAL NO. 213/1997. DATE OF JUDGMENT :- 31st July, 2008. P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr B.K.Sharma, Public Prosecutor, for State. BY THE COURT Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 14th November, 1995 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas Distt. Alwar has acquitted the accused respondent Hameed S/o Kantula in the offences under Ss. 376 and 452 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story is woven like this: That on 29th May, 1995 during mid day, the wife of the complainant PW/6, Dhani Ram was alone in her house situated in Jungle (field). While she was bathing, the accused Hameed suddenly entered in the house and forcibly committed rape upon her. Having heard the screams of prosecutrix, Mahaveer and Dulichand rushed to the spot. On seeing them, the accused fled from there. PW/6 Dhani Ram filed a written report Ex.P/1 in Police Station Tijara whereupon FIR Ex.P/3 was lodged and the investigation commenced. 2 3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, prepared site plan Ex.P/2, seized the broken bangles from the place of occurrence vide Memo Ex.P/4, arrested the accused Hameed vide Memo Ex.P/9, got both the prosecutrix and the accused medically examined and after usual investigation, filed the charge sheet in the Court. 4. The accused was charged for the offences under Ss. 376 and 452 of IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation furnished under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence. On completion of trial, the accused was acquitted in the offences as indicated hereinabove. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the accused respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the impugned judgment of the lower court along with the relevant material available on record. 3 6. The most crucial question springing for consideration in this appeal is that as to whether the accused Hameed committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will ? 7. To bring home the alleged offences against the accused respondent, albeit the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses but the whole prosecution case rests solely upon the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is very well settled that if the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statements in material particulars. The learned trial Court has minutely examined the evidence of prosecutrix in its entirety and thus found her testimony unworthy of credence. At Page 5-6 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has reproduced the relevant extracts of the statements of the prosecutrix as also the statements of PW/8 Dr. Rajkumar Mishra. The Court has critically analysed the evidence at Page Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment and thus concluded that the offence of rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 4 8. The prosecutrix PW/1 Mst. Mukesh has stated before the Court that her husband had gone to Tijara and she was alone in the house. It was a `Kachha Chappur' which had three doors. She was taking bath inside. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she was taking nude bath and the accused Hameed suddenly entered in the Chappur and made her to lie on the ground and thereafter he forcibly ravished her. She struggled to protect herself with legs and fists as a result of which she sustained injuries in her hands and legs. When the accused ravished her, she sustained injuries on her buttocks, waists and the back part of head during protest. Her back and legs were also done with wet dust. She sustained the injuries in her vagina also. As per the statement of the prosecutrix, the accused took three minutes time to rape her and during this period, she sustained so many injuries on so many parts of her body including the genitals but the Medical Report Ex.P/6 does not lend any support the statements of the prosecutrix. PW/9 Dr. Manju Agarwal has stated that she did not find any mark of injury on her thighs or private parts of her body. She did not find any mark of blood stains, semen or dust on 5 private parts. The private parts of Mukesh were normal. The Doctor examined not only her private parts and genitals but other parts of the body also but no injury was found on any part of the body except a faint abrasion on her left cheek which was square in shape. The witness has clarified that on a teeth bite, a square abrasion cannot be caused and if there is any teeth bite on cheeks then the injury or the mark shall be oval or round in shape. Thus the medical examination report does not support the statements of the prosecutrix so far as the injury part is concerned. There is no ocular or circumstantial evidence available on record which may corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix. To bring home the guilt of the offence of rape, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will. The duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove the same. In the absence of a woman's consent, the essential feature of actus rues is rape which is totally wanting in the instant case. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has critically examined the material and 6 properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix is laden with contradictions on material particulars. Her testimony does not inspire any confidence and in the facts and circumstances of the case her evidence is not found to be reliable. 10. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge of rape against the accused and the finding of acquittal of the trial Court, to my mind, is perfectly just, cogent and well-merrited. I am in unison with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court which calls for no interference. 11. For these reasons, the State appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J /gandhi