[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Yashpal on 6 March, 2026
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
Reserved on : 04.02.2026
Date of decision:
decision:06.03.2026
STATE OF HARYANA .... Appellant
Versus
YASHPAL .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MRS.. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI
Present : Ms. Sheenu Sura, D.A.G., Haryana
Haryana.
Mr. Aditya
itya Yadav, Advocate with
Mr. Viransh Ghawari,
wari, Mr. Atul Bhardwaj and
Ms. Hemlata, Advocates for the respondent.
****
RAMESH KUMARI,
KUMARI J.
1. The instant appeal is filed by the State of Haryana aggrieved with the
impugned judgment dated 09.05.2013 in case arising out of FIR No.71
dated 16.04.2012 registered under Sections 376 and 452 of IPC at Police
Station Kosli,
Kosli District Rewari vide
ide which the respondent (hereinafter
hereinafter
referred as accused)
accused has been acquitted of charges for commission of
aforesaid offences.
2. The prosecution story against the accused is that prosecutrix PW
PW-3
submitted an application Ex.P-3
Ex. on 16.04.2012 to PW
PW-12
12 ASI Sunder Lal
stating that on 15.04.2012 at about 8-8:30
8 8:30 PM, the members of her family
had gone to their fields.
s. She was alone at her house. Accused entered in
her house.. He forcibly caught her and took her to the bathroom in the
1 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
house of Rampat. He forcibly had physical relations with her. When her
family members returned home and her mother noticed that she
(prosecutrix) was not there. She started searching for her. Accused ran
away by pushing her mother.
mother She raised alarm attracting the members of
the family to the spot. The victim thus alleged that the accused had
committed rape.
3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR Ex.P-11 by PW
PW-1 ASI Jai Bhagwan,, the
prosecutrix was got medically examined.
examined. After her medical examination,
PW8 Dr. Suman Tanwar handed over the sealed parcels containing
clothes and vaginal swabs etc. to PW-12
PW 12 ASI Sunder Lal vide Ex. P-12
which was deposited with PW5 MHC/EASI
/EASI Bhagwan Das
Das. The rough site
plan Ex.P--17 of place of occurrence and scaled site plan Ex.
Ex.P-18 were
prepared. Statements of PW10 i.e. mother and father of the prosecutrix
was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 22.04.2012, the accused was
arrested. He was also medically examined. Parcel containing his
underwear sealed envelope and sample seal was taken into police
underwear,
possession vide Ex.P-13.The
Ex.P 13.The samples in due course were sent to FSL.
4. After presentation of challan and framing
framing of charges under Section 376
and 452 of IPC, prosecution examined 12 witnesses, whose testimonies
are as under:-
under:
(i) PW3 prosecutrix herself stepped into the witness box and
narrated about the occurrence in detail and specifically stated
that on 15.04.2012 at about 8:30PM, when she was alo
alone
ne in
her house, as her family members had gone to the fields for
harvesting and finding her alone, accused took her to nearby
2 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
bathroom of Rampat. He gagged her mouth and forcibly
committed raped her. He also gave elbow blo
blows
ws on her chest.
In the meantime, her mother came on the spot and accused
pushed her and ran away. Her mother raised noise (alarm).
She narrated about the incident to her family members. She
also stated that when she was taken to police post Nahar,
police met them on the way near bus stand of Nahar. S
She
he
moved application Ex.P-3 to the Police
Police,, Police brought her to
CHC Nahar where she was medico
medico-legally examined.
(ii) PW-10 mother of PW3 deposed that pprosecutrix
rosecutrix is her elder
daughter and two sons are younger to hher. She also alleged
that on 15.04.2012, at about 8 PM, her daughter was cooking
food. When she returned at about 8:30 PM from the fields,
she did not find her daughter in the house. Thereafter, she
went to the bath room of Rampat looking for her daughter
and saw that accused Yashpal @ Guddu was committing
wrong act with her daughter and upon seeking her, the
accused fled away from the spot after pushing her. Her
husband and her brother came on the spot and searched for
the accused but they were unable to find him. Her daughter
narrated the entire story to her that the accused had
committed rape after breaking the string of her salwar.
Thereafter, they went to Police Station and Police met her at
bus stand Nahar where her daughter su
submitted
bmitted written
application Ex. P-3
3 to the Police. She was with her daughter
3 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
when she was medically examined. She also identified her
signatures on memo Ex.P
Ex.P-12 vide which the parcel
containing clothes of PW3 prosecutrix and sample of vaginal
swabs and sample
ple seal and envelope containing documents
were taken into possession by the Police.
(iii) PW-12 ASI Sunder Lal conducted investigation. He in his
statement before the Court proved that the application P
P-3
was submitted to him on the intervening night of
15/16.04.2012 by the prosecutrix when she met him along
with her parents. He sent ruqa Ex.P-15
15 to Police Station
Kosli for
or registration of FIR and took the prosecutrix along
with her parents to CHC Nahar and got the prosecutrix
medically examined. After medico
medico-legally
legally examination,
MLR was received by him.
As per his further testimony, PW8 Dr. Suman Tanwar
handed over a parcel, an envelope
envelope, sample seal to him vide
memo Ex.P-12.
12. He deposited the parcel, envelop and sample
seal with the MHC PS Kosli.
He also stated about visiting the place of occurrence
and preparation of site plan Ex.P
Ex.P-17.
17. He recorded the
statements of the parents of the prosecutri
prosecutrix.
PW-12
12 ASI Sunder Lal also deposed that he also got
the accused medically examined and collected the MLR
Ex.P-5 pertaining to accused. He further deposed that after
conducting medical examination of accused, PW4 Dr. Suresh
4 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
Kumar Kataria,
ataria, handed over to him a parcel containing
underwear of accused, sealed envelop
envelope and sample seal vide
memo Ex.P-13.
The parcel of lower of the prosecutrix and underwear
of the accused was produced in the Court at the time of
recording of his statement and exhibited vide Ex.P
Ex.P-11
11 and
Ex.P-13, respectively.
(iv) PW-88 Dr. Suman Tanwar, LMO. CHC, Nahar tendered
her affidavit Ex.P-99 in support of examination
examination-in-chief
chief and
also proved MLR Ex.P-10.
10. FSL report Ex.P
Ex.P-7
7 and gave
opinion that possibility of sexu
sexual
al assault cannot be ruled out.
She also exhibited salwar of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P
Ex.P-11.
11. In
her affidavit Ex.P-9,
9, she stated that on 16.04.2012, she
medico-legally
legally examined the prosecutrix and noted following
injuries;-
1. Big red colour contusion on back rright medin to
scapula and on midline of body over vertebral
colum about 15cm.x5cm.lying vertically.
2. Local Examination;; No Ext. injury, well developed
body organs. Salwar is stained with white
discharge hymen ruptured at 7'o clock position.
No tenderness, liabia's
iabia's were separated, vagina
admit tip of two finger easily on P/V examined
white colour discharge of the tips of finger.
5 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
PW8 Dr. Suman Tanwar in her affidavit Ex.P-9
9 stated
that she handed over to the Police one sealed parcel
containing 8 seal of ST which also had brown colour salwar,
two swabs, two slides, pubic hairs and a sample of seal and
another sealed envelope containing MLR and a letter
addressed to FSL bearing 8 seal of ST.
(v) PW-4 Dr.Suresh
Suresh Kumar Kataria tendered his duly sworn
affidavit Ex.P-44 in support of examination
examination-in-chief
chief and
proved MLR Ex.P5 This affidavit stated that he medically
examined the accused on 22.04.2012 and he gave the opinion
that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable
of doing sexual intercourse
intercourse.. He also handed over one
underwear brown colour, forwarding let
letter
ter and sample seal
CSP to the police.
(vi) PW-5 EASI Bhagwan Dass tendered his affidavit Ex.P-6
6 in
support of examination in chief. He stated about deposit of
case property with him and that hhee handed over the same to
PW-11
11 Constable Pritam for depositing the same with FSL
Madhuban.
(vii) PW-11
11 HC Pritam Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.P-16
wherein he stated that on 27.04.2012, SHO handed over to
him the sample parcels of this case on the direction of MHC,
he deposited the same on the same day i.e.27.04.2012 in
office of FSL, Madhuban.
6 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
(viii) PW-99 HC Kishore Kumar deposed
osed about getting the
prosecutrix medically examined on 16.04.2012 and after
medical examination, doctor handed over to him the parcel,
sample seal and envelope which he handed over to PW-12
ASI Sunder Lal vide memo Ex.P12.
(ix) PW1 ASI Jai Bhagwan proved recording of FIR Ex. P
P-1
1 on
receipt of an application Ex.P-3 and that he made
endorsement Ex.P-2 on ruqa.
(x) PW-77 Constable Ashok Kumar deposed that he delivered
the special report to Illaqaa Magistrate and higher police
officers.
(xi) PW-6 Dharampal, Draftsman proved the scaled site plan
which he prepares on the direction of PW-12
12 ASI Sunder
Lal.
(xii) PW-2 Sarvsukh, the then SI/SHO (since retired) prepared
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
5. On 11.01.2013, prosecution closed the evidence. The statement of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused pleaded denial
and claimed false implication. Accused examined three witnesses in
defence whose testimonies are as under:
(i) DW-1 Rampat who stated that he knows prosecutrix and his
father and accused as they are co
co-villagers.
villagers. He had seen site
place Ex.P-8.
8. He is the owner of the property/bathroom
Mark-B shown in Ex.P-8.
8. He is also owner of the adjoining
plot shown in the site plan. He further stated that on
7 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
15.04.2012, he was present in the above mentioned plot from
7.30 PM to 9.00 PM. No incidence took place in bathroom
Mark-B
B during that period and no rape incidence had taken
place.
(ii) DW-2 ASI Anand Kumar produced the attendan
attendance
ce register
of Genearl Branch, DCP, Office, 1st Battalian, Delhi, Armed
Police, Kingsway Camp Delhi, pertaining to accused where
he was posted as Constable. He deposed that as per
attendance record, Constable Yashpal was on duty on
15.04.2012. Copy
opy of attendance register pertaining to
15.04.2012 is exhibited vide DW
DW2/A.
2/A. He further stated that
election of Municipal Corporation of Delhi was held in 2012
and in that background, all kinds of leaves of police officials
were stopped vide letter Ex.DW2/
Ex.DW2/B, from 08.04.2012 to
17.04.2012 by DCP, Election Cell.
(iii) DW-33 Constable Amit NO.4730
NO.4730-DAP posted at in the
office of DCP 1st Battalian, Delhi, Armed Police Kingsway
Camp Delhi,, stated that the accused was in their battalion.
On 15.04.2012, he along w
with
ith accused and other police
officials were on reserve duty regarding to Election of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and they were placed at
Kingway Camp Office Delhi. He and accused had remained
together from 9.30AM to 6.30PM. After duty, he and
accused also
lso had taken tea together.
8 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
6. The learned trial Court, upon considering the evidence led before it,
acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 452 IPC.
7. Learned State counsel contended that
that learned trial Court committed error
in passing judgment of acquittal. Learned trial Court has not appreciated
the evidence. The prosecution proved that on 15.04.2012 at 8:30 PM,
accused entered into her house and committed rape. PW10 mother of the
prosecutrix also saw the accused committing
committing the rape and running away
from the spot.
Learned State counsel further contended that tthe allegations of rape
are corroborated by medical evidence as PW8 Dr. Suman Tanwar who
had medico-legally
medico legally examined the prosecutrix and proved MLR vide Ex.P
Ex.P--
10, and specifically stated in her affidavit Ex.P
Ex.P-9 that there was a big red
colour contusion on her back and also opined that possibility of sexual
assault cannot be ruled out.
The plea of alibi of the accused that he was on duty at Delhi on
15.04.2012 is disbelieved by learned trial Court in para No.28 of its
15.04.2012,
judgment. Accused deserves
deserves to be convicted but learned trial Court took
into consideration the minor contradictions in the statements of
prosecution witnesses.
Learned State counsel further submitted that trial Court failed to
appreciate that DNA profiling was got done at the instance of accused and
not by prosecution and merely on the basis of DNA profile report, learned
trial Court completely swayed its decision in favour of the accused and
learned trial Court also failed to assign any reason as to why PW3
9 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
prosecutrix and PW10 mother of the prosecutrix would depose against the
accused.
8. Learned defence counsel contended that accused was falsely implicated in
this case. He never indulged in any offence, in fact, he was at his place of
work on the fateful day till evening and the allegations of the prosecution
are rebutted from the DNA report
repo 01.03.2013 and he prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
9. It is basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed
to be innocent unless proved contrary by the prosecution by leading
cogent and convincing evidence. The presumption in ffavour
avour of accused is
strengthened by judgment of acquittal in his favour. Initially
nitially presumption
exists throughout the trial in favour of the accused and acquittal by the
Court reinforces, reaffirms
reaffirms and strengthens this presumption. Thus, an
acquittal creates
creates a "double presumption" in favour of the accused.
9(a) For this purpose reliance can be placed upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka,
ka, [2007 (4) SCC 415] wherein after elaborate discussion as to
how the appellate court should approach the order of acquittal while
exercising appellate jurisdiction, certain principles regarding the powers
of the appellate court to be exercised against an order of acquittal, were
laid down,
"(i) An appellate
ppellate court has full power to review, re
re--
appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded.
10 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
(ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and an appellate
te court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law
(iii) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted conclusio
conclusions",
ns", "glaring
mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of
an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of "flo
"flourishes
urishes of
language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to
interfere
ere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court
to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly,, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
11 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
9(b) The judgment in Chandrappa's
's case (supra) has also been referred Raj
Pal Singh vs. Rajveer and Ors, 2026(1) RCR (Criminal) 177 and it has
been further observed that:
"9.3 In Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka [2007
(4) SCC 415), Apex Court laid down on the scope of powers
of the appellate court to re-appreciate,
appreciate, review or reconsider
the evidence and interfere with the acquittal. It was held that
where two views are possible on the evidence on record, one
taken in favour of the accused acquitting him should not be
disturbed by the Appellate Court. In that case, the trial Court
had given the benefit of doubt to the accused finding that the
prosecution had not examined the material witnesses, that
the testimony
stimony of the witnesses was unreliable and
inconsistent, that the prosecution story was unnatural and
that the knife produced before the Court as muddamal article
was not the same which was used by the accused in inflicting
injuries etc. There were also oother
ther circumstances which
created doubt about the prosecution story. This Court held
that the High Court was in error in interfering with the
possible view taken by the Trial Court on the evidence and
the reversal of the order of acquittal by the High Court was
not justified."
9(c) In Raj Pal Singh's case (supra), it is also observed that:
that:-
"9. It is well settled that the guilt of the accused and the
commission of the offence by the accused have to be
12 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
established beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances
should
hould suggest "must or should" and not "may be". It was
stated by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [1973 (2) SCC 793], that the distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be proved" is not one of
mere grammatical, but it is a legal distinction.
9.1 In Shivaji,, the Court observed,
"Certainly,
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guiltyy before a court can convict and
the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions
conclusions.."
9.2 It is a well-settled
settled principle enunciated by series of
judgments of this Court that there must exist "sub
"substantial
stantial and
compelling reasons" to upset the acquittal. Once the court
acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is
reinforced. Thereafter, the interference by the appellate
court would be minimal and has to be guided by strong and
cogent reasons. Reversal of acquittal should not be a matter
of course just because the other view is considered to be
possible by the appellate court. Even when the appellate
court re-appreciates
appreciates the evidence while dealing with the
judgment and order of acquittal, the iinnocence
nnocence attributed to
the accused acquitted from the charges of offences would be
a weighty rebuttable factor."
13 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
9(d) In the light of these settled principles, it is to be scrutinized whether the
judgment of acquittal in favour of accused is to be reversed or not. It is
also fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that defence
witnesses examined by the accused have same credibility as the
prosecution witnesses.
witnesses. The defence evidence cannot be doubted or
disbelieved simply because it is brought on rec
record
ord by the accused. The
defence evidence is legally entitled to same respect, treatment and
evolution of credibility as prosecution evidence. The defence evidence
cannot be automatically rejected.
rejected. Nor any preferential treatment can be
given to prosecution evidence as the goal of the Court is to unearth the
truth rather than the sole purpose of conviction of accused by just relying
upon the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the defence evidence cannot be
discarded simply because it was brought on record by the ac
accused.
cused. Both
prosecution and defence evidence are subjected to same level of scrutiny
to determine if the fact brought on record by either party is truthful and
reliable. If the defence evidence brought on record by the accused is
found reliable, that evidence
evidence can be used to rebut or discredit the
prosecution's case.
9(e). In the present case, FSL Report Ex.P-7
Ex.P 7 reflects that human semen was
detected on Ex.1-a (salwar Ex.P-11
11 of prosecutrix
prosecutrix) and Ex.P-2 (underwear
underwear
of accused), however, no semen was detected on the rest of the exhibits
i.e. on two cotton wool swabs on sticks sstated
tated as vaginal swabs but the
police
olice did not get any report whether the semen of these exhibits were that
of accused because the blood
od sample of the accused w
was never collected
14 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
by PW-4
4 Dr. Suresh Kumar Kataria,
Kataria who medically examined the
accused.
9(f). The accused himself moved application before the Court of learned SDJM
to get the DNA profiling done to determine whether the human semen
detected on the salwar and underwear was that of him or not ? On the
basis of this application, the accused was taken to FSL Madhuban for
taking
ing sample of his blood for DNA profiling. DNA report dated
01.03.2013 states that the allelic pattern of item No.1 i.e. salwar of the
prosecutrix did not match with the allelic pattern of item No.12 i.e the
blood sample of accused.
accused. This fact is noted by learned trial Court in para
No.22 (viii and ix) of the impugned judgment.
9(g). So far as the legal position in respect of evidentiary value to be given to
the DNA report is concerned, reference can be made here to decision by
Hon'ble the Apex Court inn the case of Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy
Joseph v. State Maharashtra MANU/SC/0124/2014: (2014) 4 SCC 69
69, in
which it was observed in paragraph 18 as under:
18. Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a molecule that
encodes the genetic information in all living
organisms. DNA genotype can be obtained from any
biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva,
hair skin, etc. Now, for several years, DNA profile has
also shown a tremendous impact on forensic
investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a
sample found at the scene of crime matches with the
DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be
15 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
concluded that both the samples have the same
biological origin.
gin. DNA profile is valid and reliable,
but variance in a particular result depends on the
quality control and quality procedure in the
laboratory".
9(h). In the present case, after FSL report Ex. P
P-7,
7, the accused moved
application for DNA profiling and upon
upon the order of the Court, his blood
sample was taken by FSL Madhuban. Thus, so far as the integrity of his
blood sample and integrity of the salwar Ex. P-11 as sample is not
questionable. There is no reason for not relying upon the DNA report
regarding the DNA profiling of the blood of accused with the semen
found on the salwar Ex.P-11 of PW3 prosecutrix
prosecutrix. As the DNA of the
semen on the salwar Ex.P-11 of the prosecution was found not matching
ing
with the blood of the accused and
and since DNA report is valid and reliable
piece of evidence,
evidence, learned trial Court committed no irregularity or
illegality to make this report as one of the basis/reasoning for its judgment
of acquittal
9(i). Besides this, learned trial Court also noted the discrepancies in the
statement of the prosecutrix and her mother PW
PW-10 to disbelieve their
testimonies These discrepancies are as under:
testimonies. under:-
(i) PW3 prosecutrix stated that accused kept her mouth
clubbed with his hand throughout the occurrence and
as such,, she could not raise alarm. She also stated that
accused kept his hand at her mouth even when accused
was putting of his pant. Learned trial Court rightly
16 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
observed that this version of the prosecutrix is hard to
believe and is not acceptable as the same ddoes
oes not
appeal to a common sense.
(ii) Learned trial Court also noted that the house of the
prosecutrix is surrounded by the house of her uncles
and prosecutrix further stated that she was alone at the
time of incident when she was taken by the accused
from
m her house to bathroom of Rampat which is about
40-45
45 yards away. Learned trial Court rightly noted
that when the house of the prosecutrix is surrounded
by houses of her family members, then it is highly
improbable to take the prosecutrix to the toilet of
another person without being noticed by the residents
of the adjoining houses.
(iii) Regarding the place of occurrence
occurrence, PW3 prosecutrix in
her complaint Ex.P-3
3 and in her testimony before the
Court stated that the incident took place in the
bathroom of Rampat
mpat whereas
whereas, she informed PW8 Dr.
Suman Tanwar that she was sexually assaulted at her
own house. PW8 Dr. Suman Tanwar during the cross
examination also stated that she was intimated by the
prosecutrix that the incident had taken place at her
house. Thus, there are two versions regarding the place
of occurrence disclosed by the prosecutrix and this
also makes the prosecution's case highly doubtful.
17 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
(iv) As per the MLR Ex. P
P-10,, there was no injury on the
private parts and there was only one injury on the back
of the prosecutrix regarding which doctor had opined
that the possibility of the said injury being 48 hours
old cannot be ruled out. Meaning thereby, the said
injury could have been suffered by the prosecutrix
prior to the occurrence as the medical examination
amination of
PW3 was conducted within 5 house of occurrence.
PW3 in her examination in chief also did not depose
that she suffered injury on her back although she has
stated that accused had given elbow blow on her chest
chest..
As per MLR Ex. P-10 there was no injury on her chest..
PW3 also deposed that accused clubbed her mouth
with his hand throughout the occurrence
occurrence.. Had that
been the case, there would have been swelling or some
mark of injury on her face. The testimony of
prosecutrix that she was forcibly take
taken
n from her house
to place of occurrence which was at a distance of
around 45 feet from her house was rightly disbelieved
by the learned trial Court because there was no injury
or dragging marks on her leg or any part of her body.
In statement Ex.D1 of PW10 mother of prosecutrix,
she had stated that she had not seen the accused
committing intercourse with her daughter and she had
only seen the accused coming out of bathroom. So as
18 of 19
CRA-D-772-DB-2014
per her statement Ex.D1 before the Police, the vers
version
ion
of rape is not corroborated.
(v) PW3 prosecutrix in her examination in chief also
stated that she had given nail bite or tooth bite to
accused during struggle but as per MLR Ex. P5 of
accused, there was no mark on hhis body. This also
belies the story of the prosecution.
9(j) In view of the DNA report dated 01.03.2013 that negates that semen
found on the salwar Ex.P-11
Ex.P 11 of PW3 was that of accused
accused,, and in view of
the discrepancies and contradictions noted above
above, learned trial Court
rightly recorded acquittal of the accused.
9(k) In view of above discussion, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the impugned judgment.
Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(GURVINDER
GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
GILL (RAMESH KUMARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
06.03.2026
Jyoti-IV
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No
19 of 19
