Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Durgia vs State on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLA-343/1993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 343/1993
Durgia
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tejmal Ranka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
22/04/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of
this Court towards the medical report, which reflects the opinion
of the doctor which is to the effect that no recent tear or any kind
of injury in the hymen was found. Learned counsel further submits
that a complaint was filed that the appellant has enticed away the
prosecutrix for keeping her as his wife, the complaint is exhibit P-
14.
Learned counsel thereafter, has drawn the attention of this
Court towards the statement of PW-1, doctor, who has deposed
that there were no signs of semen or any other liquid on the
clothes; the doctor has further deposed that there were no injuries
whatsoever on the body of the prosecutrix; the doctor has also
(Downloaded on 27/04/2022 at 08:19:19 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-343/1993]
deposed that the prosecutrix was having 28 molars and have a
developed body; the doctor further deposed that there was no
fresh tear in the hymen, which could suggest recent sexual
intercourse.
Learned counsel for the appellant has thereafter, taken this
Court to the statement rendered by the PW-5, the prosecutrix, in
which, she has stated that by causing fear of a knife, the rape was
committed, and when Banshi Lal encountered the same, the
appellant ran away. She further deposed that the appellant is her
brother-in-law.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken this Court
to the statement rendered by Banshi Lal PW-6, in which, he has
deposed that while he was going to the farm, he saw that the
appellant having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He
deposed that when he encountered the appellant, he ran away
and the prosecutrix also went after him, thereafter, he went in
search of them and also lodged the police report.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions.
On a conjoint reading of the statement rendered by the PW-1
doctor and PW-6 Banshi Lal, who was the main complainant, who
caught the prosecutrix and the appellant engaging in sexual
intercourse in a farm place, clearly deposes that the present
appellant ran away and behind him, the prosecutrix also ran away;
the FSL report regarding semen and other articles is not on
record, this Court is inclined to allow the present criminal appeal.
Resultantly, the present criminal appeal is allowed.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded vide the
impugned judgment dated 28.09.1993 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Sessions Trial No.110 of 1992
(Downloaded on 27/04/2022 at 08:19:19 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-343/1993]
(103/89) is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of
the charges levelled against him. The appellant is in custody. He
shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other
case.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
68-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
