Case: Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P

A. One Smt. Batasi Devi (PW.2) lodged an FIR on 2.2.1996 in Haraiya Police Station alleging that her daughter Renu, aged 5-6 years, was found dead on her cot in Muradipur, the village of her maternal grandmother on 30.1.1996 at about 9.00 p.m. Initially, she had been told that her daughter died of paralysis and she was buried at the bank of Manorama river. Later on she got information from Shitla Prasad Verma (PW.8), Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7) and other persons of the same village that her daughter had been raped and killed by Ramesh, appellant. She also made a request that the dead body of the child be exhumed and sent for post-mortem.B. On the order of the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the dead body of Renu was dug out from the grave and sent for post-mortem on 3.2.1996. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Ajay Kumar Verma and Dr. S.S. Dwedi of District Hospital. In their opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem vaginal injuries.C. On the basis of the post-mortem report, Case Crime No. 22 of 1996 was registered against the appellant under Sections 302 and 376 IPC. After having the investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the appellant. During the trial prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case including Kunwar Dhruv Narain Singh (PW.1), the scribe of the FIR, Batasi Devi (PW.2), mother of the deceased Renu, Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7), Shitla Prasad Verma (PW.8) and after conclusion of the trial and considering the evidence on record, the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 2.2.1999 acquitted the appellant of both the aforesaid charges.D. Being aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1246 of 1999 which has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2007 and the appellant has been convicted and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment on both counts.Hence, this appeal.One Smt. Batasi Devi (PW.2) lodged an FIR on 2.2.1996 in Haraiya Police Station alleging that her daughter Renu, aged 5-6 years, was found dead on her cot in Muradipur, the village of her maternal grandmother on 30.1.1996 at about 9.00 p.m. Initially, she had been told that her daughter died of paralysis and she was buried at the bank of Manorama river. Later on she got information from Shitla Prasad Verma (PW.8), Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7) and other persons of the same village that her daughter had been raped and killed by Ramesh, appellant. She also made a request that the dead body of the child be exhumed and sent for post-mortem.B. On the order of the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the dead body of Renu was dug out from the grave and sent for post-mortem on 3.2.1996. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Ajay Kumar Verma and Dr. S.S. Dwedi of District Hospital. In their opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem vaginal injuries.C. On the basis of the post-mortem report, Case Crime No. 22 of 1996 was registered against the appellant under Sections 302 and 376 IPC. After having the investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the appellant. During the trial prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case including Kunwar Dhruv Narain Singh (PW.1), the scribe of the FIR, Batasi Devi (PW.2), mother of the deceased Renu, Jata Shankar Singh (PW.7), Shitla Prasad Verma (PW.8) and after conclusion of the trial and considering the evidence on record, the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 2.2.1999 acquitted the appellant of both the aforesaid charges.D. Being aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1246 of 1999 which has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2007 and the appellant has been convicted and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment on both counts.Hence, this

Court's reasoning:
In the aforesaid fact-situation, we have to weigh as to whether the High Court is justified in reversing the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trialhave been taken through the entire evidence on record and after re-appreciating the same we can unhesitatingly record that:(i) Undoubtedly, the trial court has not made any reference to the depositions of Batasi Devi (PW.2) and also of Kunwar Dhruv Narain Singh (PW.1) in respect to the fact that the thatched house of roof of Smt. Phulpatta Devi, maternal grandmother of Renu, deceased had fallen and she as well as Renu used to sleep in the house of Ramesh, appellant which was in very close vicinity of Smt.house. Ganga Ram (DW.1) has stated that on the day of occurrence, Smt. Phulpatta Devi and Renu did not sleep in the house of Ramesh, however, as he was living permanently in the city and did not say that he was present on that day in the village, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration so far as this issue is concerned. The defence did not cross-examine Kunwar Dhruv Narain Singh (PW.1) and Batasi Devi (PW.2) on this issue. Thus, the trial court committed an error recording such finding of fact.(ii) It has come on record that Smt. Phulpatta Devi was an old, infirm and totally blind woman and it was for this reason that Renu, deceased was left for her assistance. The trial court ought not to have drawn adverse inference for not examining Smt. Phulpatta Devi by the prosecution. Thus, the adverse inference drawn by the trial court on this count is unwarranted and uncalled for.(iii) The trial court has held that Kunwar Dhruv Narain Singh (PW.1) had been inimical to Ramesh and his family for the reason thatfather had been working in the agricultural field at the said witness and after joining the servicefather had rendered financial help to other poor persons of the village and thus those poor persons were not available for work to the said witness. In this regard, the defence has examined Ganga Ram (DW.1) who had deposed that thefather had been looking after the agricultural work of that witness, however, joined the service in court 14 years prior to the date of incident and Gangafamily was also looking after the agricultural work of the said witness but 8 years prior to the date of incident. He had also left the village and opened a beetle shop in the city after getting financial aid fromfather. Such an evidence is required to be examined in the light of attending circumstances and particularly taking into consideration the proximity of time. Time is the greatest heeler. In case thefather had left working in the field of the witness 14 years prior to the date of incident and Ganga(DW.1) family has left 8 years prior to the said date, the time gap itself falsifies the testimony for the reason that the time gap is a factor of paramount importance in this regard. More so, it is not the defence case that any other family or labour was available in the village to look after the agricultural work of the said witness.(iv) The recovery of part of the sheet and white clothes having blood and semen as per the FSL report has been dis-believed by the trial court in view of the fact that Ram Prasad alias Parsadi (PW.5) and Bhikari (PW.10) did not support the prosecution case like other witnesses who did not support the last seen theory. The trial court failed to appreciate that both the said witnesses, Ram Prasad alias Parsadi (PW.5) and Bhikari (PW.10) had admitted their signature/thumb impression on the recovery.The factum of taking the material exhibits and preparing of the recovery memo with regard to the same and sending the cut out portions to the Serologist who found the blood and semen on them vide report dated 21.3.1996 (Ext. Ka 21) is not disputed. The serological report also revealed that the vaginal swab which was taken by the doctor was also human blood and semen stained.18. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (Vide: Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 ; Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 ; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 ; and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 ).Therefore, in such a case the paramount importance of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. The benefit of doubt particularly in every case may not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense.27. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the acquittal in the instant case by the trial court was totally illegal, unwarranted and based on mis-appreciation of evidence for the reason that the court had given undue weightage to unimportant discrepancies and inconsistencies which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal.