Idan Ram Soni vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 16534 Raj

                                       (1 of 6)                   [CRLAD-136/2020]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
               D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 136/2020

Idan Ram Soni S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Police
Station Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     State, Through Pp
2.     Bhagirath Singh S/o Rewant Singh, R/o Khokhsar, Police
       Station Gida, Dist. Barmer.
3.     Ranu Singh S/o Swai Singh, R/o Jeevrajgarh, Falsund,
       Police Station Falsund, District Jaisalmer.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. D.K. Godara
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anil Joshi, PP




          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                Judgment

Date of pronouncement : 29/10/2021

Judgment reserved on : 04/10/2021

BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.

The instant appeal under Section 378 CrPC has been

preferred by the appellant Idan Ram Soni, the complainant

(victim's father), for assailing the judgment dated 17.01.2020

passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Jodhpur District in Sessions Case

No.78/2018, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the

respondent Bhagirath Singh from the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of

(2 of 6) [CRLAD-136/2020]

the POCSO Act and acquitted respondent Ranu Singh from the

offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC.

Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of

the appeal are noted hereinbelow:-

The appellant herein lodged a written report (Ex.P/7) at

the Police Station Shergarh on 22.10.2017 alleging inter alia that

his minor daughter Mst. 'Ch', the victim, aged 17 years, was

present at his house on 21.10.2017. She was induced and taken

away at about 11.00 a.m. He suspected that his daughter might

have been kidnapped by Bhag Singh and Jaswant Singh with the

intention of marrying her off. His daughter had received a call on

her mobile phone on 18.10.2017 and this was the basis of

suspicion. She had two phones and both were switched off. On

the basis of this report, an FIR No.201/2017 came to be registered

at the Police Station Shergarh for the offences under Sections 363

and 366 IPC. The respondents Bhagirath Singh and Ranu Singh

were arrested and charge-sheet was filed against them after

conducting investigation. The trial court framed charges against

the accused Bhagirath Singh for the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of

the POCSO Act, whereas charges were framed against accused

Ranu Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A

IPC. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 16

documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under

Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the prosecution

evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been

(3 of 6) [CRLAD-136/2020]

falsely implicated. It would be fruitful to reproduce the language

of the charges No.3 and 4, which were framed by the trial court

against Bhagirath Singh :-

"rhljk & ;g fd vkius fnuakd 22-10-17 dks ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ gksus ls 6&7 ekg iwoZ ekStk [kks[kklj] iqfyl Fkkuk fxM+k] ftyk ckMesj fLFkr vius jgoklh; edku esa cus ckFk:e esa ihfM+rk ^^p** dks ys tkdj mlds lkFk tcju laHkksx dj cykRlax fd;kA bl izdkj vkius ,slk dk;Z fd;k] tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 376 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gS rFkk ftldk laKku ysus dh vf/kdkfjrk bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gSA

pkSFkk & vkius fnukad 22-10-17 dks ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ gksus ls 6&7 ekg iwoZ ekStk [kks[kklj] iqfyl Fkkuk fxM+k] ftyk ckM+esj fLFkr vius jgoklh; edku esa cus ckFk:e esa vizkIro; ihfM+rk ^^p** mez djhc 17 o'kZ ¼tUe fnukad 15-09-2000½ ds lkFk tcju laHkksx dj ml ij izos"ku ySafxd geyk ¼Penetrative Sexual Assault½ dkfjr fd;kA bl izdkj vius ,slk dk;Z] tks ;kSu vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012 dh /kkjk 3 lifBr /kkjk 4 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k gS rFkk ftldk laKku ysus dh vf/kdkfjrk bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gSA"

The trial court appreciated the evidence available on

record and came to a conclusion that the school record relied upon

by the prosecution to prove the age of the victim was unreliable.

The victim was definitely major as on the date of the incident.

She voluntarily went away from her father's house and the

accused Bhagirath Singh did not subject her to forcible sexual

assault. The trial court took note of the previous police statement

of the victim (Ex.D/1), with which she was confronted extensively

during her cross-examination. In this statement, the victim stated

that she had been married to one Ashok in the year 2013.

However, she was not satisfied with her husband and that he was

not worthy of her (due to his inability to procreate). He was

(4 of 6) [CRLAD-136/2020]

provided treatment, but was of no avail. She talked to her

parents about this infirmity in her husband, on which they told her

that she was on her own and could do as she pleased. On this,

she contacted Ranu Singh and left her father's house on the day

next to Deepawali, i.e. 21.10.2017, for going to Haridwar. She

came down to Jodhpur, from there she went to Jaipur in a

Roadways bus. From there, she moved on to Haridwar via Delhi.

She stayed at Haridwar for one night and then proceeded to

Ahmedabad. On the way, she got down at Sirohi Road. In the

meantime, the police found her and took her back to her father's

house. The statement of the victim was also recorded under

Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P/4) and she was extensively confronted

with the said statement during cross-examination. In this

statement, she reiterated the allegation that her husband Ashok

was not worthy of her and was of no use (imputation of

impotency). She came in contact with one Bhagirath Singh, who

used to threaten her saying that he would malign her and also

that she would be killed. About 6 to 7 months ago, Bhagirath

made her to sleep with him and indulged in a wrong act with her.

Ranu Singh used to talk to her frequently. She left her father's

house of her own volition on 21.10.2017 and called Ranu Singh.

However, she could not contact him. She went to Haridawar.

Ranu Singh contacted her and instigated her to reach Ahmedabad.

She proceeded and in midway, she got down at Sirohi Road, where

the police caught her.

When the victim Mst. 'Ch' was examined on oath as

P.W.3, she entirely changed the story and alleged that she had

(5 of 6) [CRLAD-136/2020]

come to her father's house from the matrimonial home. Bhagirath

Singh called her out of the house. He and Ranu Singh were

waiting there. They boarded her on to a car and took her to

Jodhpur. From there, she was made to sit in a bus to Haridwar.

On the way, the accused tried to rape her. Then she stated that

both Bhagirath Singh and Ranu Singh subjected her to rape after

she was taken away from her father's house.

It is relevant to state here that in this statement, the

girl did not utter a single word that Bhagirath Singh subjected her

to rape 6-7 months before lodging of the report. When confronted

with the previous statements (Ex.P/4 and Ex.D/1), she stated that

these statements were partially true and partially false. She was

confronted with her Bhamashah Card wherein, her date of birth

was recorded as 01.02.1994. She also disowned her age as

recorded in Ration Card and Job Card (Ex.D/3 and Ex.D/4). After

appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court held

that the victim was major on the date of the incident and that she

was not kidnapped by the accused persons; that she herself went

away from her father's house of her own free will and volition.

The allegation that the victim was subjected to sexual assault

about 6-7 months before lodging of the FIR by both the accused

was doubtful and that her statement was full of improvements and

embellishments. She tried to improve upon the version set out in

her previous statements and also imputed the act of sexual

assault against Ranu Singh, whereas no such allegation was made

by her in her previous two statements (Ex.P/4 and Ex.D/1). There

was no allegation in either of these two statements that the two

(6 of 6) [CRLAD-136/2020]

accused persons accompanied the victim when she went away

from her father's house and till reached Haridwar. Thus, finding

the allegations of victim to be full of contradictions and

embellishments, her testimony was found to be unreliable and

accordingly, the accused were given benefit of doubt and were

acquitted by the impugned judgment.

After appreciating the evidence available on record, we

are not in the least convinced with the contention of Shri Godara

that the testimony of the victim is reliable or that the guilt of the

accused can be founded thereupon. The appreciation of evidence

as undertaken by the trial court and the findings recorded in the

impugned judgment while acquitting the accused Bhagirath Singh

and Ranu Singh by giving them benefit of doubt is apposite and

does not warrant any interference in this victim's appeal, which is

not fit to be admitted. Hence, the same is dismissed at the stage

of admission.

Record be returned to the trial court.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                         (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)