Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs State Of Rajasthan

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2008, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in D.B. Crl.A. Nos. 1250 and 1749 of 2003 by way of which, the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeals and affirmed the judgment and order dated 5.8.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2002 by way of which, the appellant stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC’), and was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 302 IPC; 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 376 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment of 5 years alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 201 IPC, and in default of depositing such fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The substantive sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the necessary facts related to the present case are as under:

B. The trial court concluded the trial and convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC, vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.8.2003 and awarded the sentence as referred to hereinabove . C. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2008.

Rohtash (PW.1), the father of the deceased, has deposed that they had reported the case to the police in the morning at around 8 O’ Clock as Pooja was found to be missing. The appellant had thereafter arrived at around 4 O’Clock in the evening, and had asked Rohtash (PW.1), to pay to him, a sum of Rs.2,000/-, stating that he would bring Pooja back. They had informed the police about this fact while lodging the FIR. In his cross examination, Rohtash (PW.1) admitted that the issue of the appellant asking for a sum of Rs.2,000/- had not been mentioned in the FIR. Then the witness himself voluntarily deposed, that the sum of Rs.2,000/- was asked for after the said report had already been written. He further deposed that he had never seen the appellant before he had asked him for the said amount of Rs.2,000/-. The witness also deposed that the police had not made any inquiry from him in this regard, and then made a statement to the contrary alleging that the police had questioned him vigorously. It may also be pertinent to mention that in his deposition, Rohtash (PW.1) was unable to mention the particular date on which the appellant had approached his family, and had asked for a sum of Rs.2,000/-.

11. So far as the recovery of the clothes of the accused which were recovered with blood and semen stains is concerned, there are numerous contradictions. Hari Singh (PW.9), the constable who made the said recoveries has deposed that on 27.5.2001, he had made the recovery of a light brown shirt, a white coloured vest on which there were blood like stains, one cream coloured underwear on which blood like stains and semen stains were found. The same were recovered from the appellant. Therefore, it is clear that the recoveries of the clothes of the appellant were made on 27.5.2001, and not on 24.5.2001. If the appellant had in fact been arrested as per the version of events narrated by PWs.1 to 4 on 24.5.2001, there would be no occasion for the police to make the recovery of his clothes on 27.5.2001. The statement of Rohtash (PW.1) was recorded on 27.5.2001, though the same was shown as recorded on 24.5.2001, and the statement of all other witnesses was recorded on 27.5.2001. It is thus, difficult to understand how such a material discrepancy in the evidence has been ignored by the courts below while convicting the appellant. Exts.P-23 to P-39 are the relevant photographs. They do not bear the signature of any person and therefore, it is difficult to comprehend how these material exhibits were sent for FSL report.

14. The appellant after his arrest on 27.5.2001 was medically examined by Dr. Laxman Singh (PW.12) on May 28, 2001 and vide his medical examination report (Ext. P-22), an abrasion of the size of 0.2 x 0.2 cm on the corona penis was found. The body of the penis and glands therein were swollen and tenderness and inflammation was present. There was nothing to suggest that the appellant was incapable of indulging in intercourse.

The trial court also doubted the conduct of the appellant for the reason that he had slept in the jeep though he was neither the driver of a jeep nor the servant of Daulat Ram (PW.7), the driver. The High Court had taken note of the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.’), wherein the appellant had replied that the aforesaid deposition was wrong, and held that explanation furnished by him was false.

40. Thus, we find force in the submissions advanced by Ms. Makhija, learned Amicus Curiae, that evidence produced by the prosecution had been very shaky and the chain of links connecting the appellant with the crime appears inconclusive. The circumstantial evidence is completely wanting in this respect. To accept the description of the evidence collected as flimsy, or no evidence would be too short for convicting the appellant for the offence, as many issues/circumstances virtually remained unexplained.

In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thus, he becomes entitled for benefit of doubt. Thus, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The appellant be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.

Before parting with the case, we record our appreciation to Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate who rendered invaluable service as Amicus Curiae in disposal of these appeals.

May 6, 2013.