Rama Nand Gandwal Vs State of HP 08.09.2009 (uniqueunique)
Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2008
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge.
2010 CrLJ 3005
Indian Penal Code — Section 376 — rape — Conviction set aside — Strict Principal who caught 200 students for using unfair means in examination acquitted of rape case — Prosecutrix was a student of that school — On 30th May, 2004, appellant made a telephonic call to prosecutrix, at 4 pm., at her residence in village Salancha and asked her to reach school to learn karate — Appellant was present in his office — Prosecutrix went to his office and met him — He asked prosecutrix (PW-1 — name withheld) to visit him at his residence at 8 pm — Appellant then went to his house — Prosecutrix passed her time in school and went to Principal’s residence accompanied by PW-4 Mohinder Singh, late in evening — Appellant was present in his house — Thereafter, appellant, prosecutrix and PW-4 Mohinder Singh took their meals — PW-4 Mohinder Singh left house of appellant — Next morning, prosecutrix went back home — Police got prosecutrix medically examined — PW-12 Dr. Deepti Rana conducted medical examination — Appellant was arrested on 19th June, 2004 — On completion of investigation, appellant was challaned — Learned Sessions Judge charged appellant with offences, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC — Appellant pleaded not guilty to charge — Appellant denied that he had committed alleged crime — There is no evidence, except bald statement of prosecutrix, that appellant helped her to get through compartment examination, by using unfair means — fact that prosecutrix was talking to appellant negates prosecutrix version that she was threatened or allured by appellant — Contradictions in testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1), PW-4 Mohinder Singh and PW-8 Chaman Singh also suggest that prosecutrix might not have gone to Bhanjraru on relevant date — PW-4 Mohinder Singh not only contradicts prosecutrix, with regard to her testimony that PW-4 Mohinder Singh accompanied her to residence of appellant, but also with respect to her testimony that appellant had asked her to reach his place around 8 PM — Moreover, PW-1, prosecutrix, does not say that Chowkidar (PW4 Mohinder Singh) was sent to bazaar to fetch meals Statement of prosecutrix that appellant consumed liquor at 9 in evening also does not appear to be correct — According to prosecutrix, meals were taken, before PW-4 Mohinder Singh left — PW-4 Mohinder Singh appears to be a procured and managed witness to seek corroboration to testimony of prosecutrix — From conduct of father of prosecutrix, namely PW-2 Narain Singh, it appears that prosecutrix had not gone to Bhanjraru on relevant date — Prosecutrix herself stated that it takes one hour to reach school from her house — Prosecutrix admitted that both teachers were in their room on relevant date — There was another relative of prosecutrix, who, according to prosecution story, had noticed prosecutrix going towards house of appellant and spending night with appellant, in his room — He was Raj Kumar, per testimony of PW-8 Chaman Singh — Non-examination of Raj Kumar also makes it highly doubtful whether prosecutrix was with appellant at his residence on relevant night — statement suggests that PW-4 Mohinder Singh had been held hostage until he stated something incriminating against appellant — PW-3 Kuldeep Thakur himself stated that prosecutrix is his Mama’s daughter and that she had failed in mathematics paper of 8th standard examination and got compartment in that subject and was helped by appellant, to clear that examination — PW-1 prosecutrix and her father PW-2 Narain Singh also testified that Kuldeep Thakur had visited their house on 16th June, 2004, in evening, and he (Kuldeep Thakur) questioned prosecutrix and latter narrated incident to him — According to prosecutrix, PW-3 Kuldeep Thakur came around 9.30 PM and did not stay at her father’s place for night — That means prosecutrix, father of prosecutrix and PW-3 Kuldeep Thakur, Press Reporter, remained at Police Station for 12 hours, before FIR Ext — PA was registered — Now question arises why should have prosecutrix and PW-3 Kuldeep Thakur fabricated a false story — Prosecutrix’ father PW-2 Narain Singh also admitted that appellant was a very strict Principal and had detected many cases of unfair means — prosecutrix herself was not good at studies — Prosecutrix was already exposed to sexual intercourse — Judgment of trial Court, convicting and sentencing appellant is set aside and appellant is acquitted.
Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - rape - Conviction set aside
No comments:
Post a Comment