Case: Ajay @ Neetu Vs. The State of Haryana

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. With the assistance of the counsel for the appellant, we have perused the evidence on record and the two judgments in question. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial court on the basis of the analysis of the evidence on record, in particular, the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-3), which commended to the High Court, warrants no interference. While analyzing the evidence of PW-3, the trial court noted thus:-?Now turning to the merits of the prosecution case, the prosecution case is based on the testimony of PW-3 (Prosecutrix) and she has stated on oath that on 16-04-2000 she was sleeping in the house in the night and her husband had gone to Gud Mandi for attending labour work. Accused present in the court entered the room and caught hold her hand and the PW-3 (Prosecutrix) further deposed the manner of commission of offence, infliction of injuries, raising of the alarm and coming of the witnesses on the spot. During cross examination, the veracity of the witness could not be impeached at all and neither the previous enmity not any other ground regarding false implication of the present accused could be put or suggested to the witness and again, it is not the case of the accused that it was a consented transaction and even the whole reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix does not suggest the inference of consent.The victim of offence in the present case is a poor lady of 35 years of age and there are no allegations regarding moral character of the victim and in Indian Society no lady of virtue is supposed to invite unnecessary criticism for herself by alleging forcible rape upon herself. The status of the victim of rape is down-graded in the society and on lady of virtue would like rape upon her body unless the offence actually has been committed or if the victim is to take revenge of any other bigger enmity with the accused.In the present case, no enmity could be suggested which may instigate the prosecutrix to level false allegations of rape and in such a state of affairs, no inference can be raised that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case because there is neither the earlier rivalry nor the allegations against the moral character of the victim could be proved and even it is not possible to raise inference of consent in the present case.A simple suggestion has been made to PW-3 (Prosecutrix) that she was to pay the price of meat to the accused and on that dispute she falsely implicated the accused. No lady of virtue is supposed to invite unnecessary criticism for herself on account of petty dispute regarding price of meat allegedly purchased from the shop of the accused and in the present case, the prosecutrix has categorically disclosed that the accused was not known to him earlier.?And again:-?The statement of the prosecutrix in the present case as PW-3 as already discussed is above all suspicions and there is nothing to suggest that the statement of PW-3 (Prosecutrix) is inherently improbable and no inference of consent is possible and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and in such a state of affairs, the statement of PW-3 which stands corroborated on material particulars by the testimony of PW-12 Medical Officer, PW-4, husband of prosecutrix and PW-5, independent witness is sufficient to discharge the heavy burden on prosecution.Resultantly, in view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has been able to substantiate its allegations on record beyond all reasonable shadows of doubt and the prosecution has been able to establish on record that the accused after having criminally trespassed the house of th complainant/prosecutrix (PW-3), gave beatins to the complainant and committed rape upon her and also criminally intimidated the complainant as threats were extended to kill the complainant in case the matter is reported. Hence, the prosecution has been able to substantiate on record that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 376 and 506 IPC and the accused is hereby held guilty accordingly and is convicted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 452, 323, 376 and 506 IPC. Let, the accused be heard on quantum of sentence.? 3. The High Court in appeal, after analyzing the same evidence, opined thus:-?Two injuries were found on the person of prosecutrix, which lends support to the case of prosecution. There was no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely impliacte the accused/appellant. Had it been a case of consent, in that case, there would not have been injuries on the person of prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that the accused pressed her neck and also gave her fist and slap blows. Injuries on the person of prosecutrix have proved the said fact. The presence of semen on the salwar of prosecutrix further lends support to the prosecution story. The stand taken by the accused that on account of dispute of payment of meat, he has been falsely impl8icated, has rightly been disbelieved by the trial court. It is not possible that for a petty matter of few hundred rupees, a person would be falsely implicated in such a heinous crime. The neighbour Suman (independent witness) has also supported the (husband of the prosecutrix) has also supported the case of prosecution. There is no undue delay in lodging the FIR. Mere fact that she is a married lady having four children, does not prove the fact that it is a case of consent.? 4. As aforesaid, we have gone through the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial court regarding the evidence of PW-3, is unquestionable and, therefore, has been rightly upheld by the High Court.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]2. With the assistance of the counsel for the appellant, we have perused the evidence on record and the two judgments in question. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial court on the basis of the analysis of the evidence on record, in particular, the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-3), which commended to the High Court, warrants no interference4. As aforesaid, we have gone through the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In our opinion, the view taken by the trial court regarding the evidence of PW-3, is unquestionable and, therefore, has been rightly upheld by the High Court.