Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajveer Singh vs State on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLA-351/1988]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 351/1988
Rajveer Singh
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. JS Choudhary Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
05/05/2022
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.
The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellant claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may
kindly be accepted and accused appellant be acquitted
under Section 376 IPC. "
This Court observes that the incident happened on 14.8.1986
at about 10:45 P.M. when one Radha Krishna and one Sabir Khan
narrated the incident regarding the appellant, who was an army
personnel, came there and picked up a women mentally
challenged and forcibly took her towards railway yards while
dragging her. It is alleged that when the appellant was followed
they caught him while committing rape upon the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
allegations are not correct, because the actual incident was that
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:20:28 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLA-351/1988]
the appellant entered into an altercation with the taxi person Sabir
Khan and other taxi persons, upon which he has been falsely
implicated in the case.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that an
overall facts and circumstances of the case are highly improbable,
unnatural and do not confirm to the normal human behaviour of a
prudent man and therefore, the acquittal is called for.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed focal reliance
upon the statement of the doctor examined as PW-1 Dr.
Dharmendra Sharm, who has deposed that he took samples of the
vagina smear etc. He further deposed that with the consent of the
prosecutrix, he examined her and there were absolutely no injury
on the body of the prosecutrix, however, her hymen was torn. The
PW-1 Doctor has further deposed that the sexual intercourse with
the prosecutrix had occurred about 3-4 days before the
examination. The doctor also deposed that there was no evidence
of the present appellant having sexual intercourse. The Doctor has
further deposed that from the physical examination of the
prosecutrix, no signs of rape were seen. The doctor further
deposed that the examination was done on the consent of the
prosecutrix and she looked normal in her mental behaviour.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this
Court towards the statements of PW-3 & PW-4, which show
serious discrepancies in sealing the sample and belated reaching
the sample for the FSL.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that semen
was not detected in Ex.1 & Ex.2, which were the clothes of the
prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:20:28 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLA-351/1988]
railway station is a crowded place and any such incident is unlikely
to have occurred.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of
this Court to the statement of PW-9 Dr. Mahaveer Chand, in which,
he has deposed that the prosecutrix is suffering from
Schizophrenia. It is also noted that the statement of the
prosecutrix could not be recorded due to her inability to do so.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
factum of the prosecutrix suffering from schizophrenia at the time
of incident is not clarified by PW-9 and he merely stated that
schizophrenia was established at the time of examination.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the appeal by
submitting that semen was found in the vagina smear, which was
Ex.4 in the FSL report and as per him, once the semen was
detected, it corroborated the version of the eye witnesses
regarding the offence of commission of rape and thus, the
conviction order was in accordance with law.
This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the record of the case finds that the complete chain of
events has loopholes, which could not be effectively plugged by
the prosecution. The medical evidence, particularly of PW-1, is
sufficient to cause the serious doubts in the prosecution story, as
the doctor has clearly deposed that no medical sign of the
appellant having committed sexual intercourse. Furthermore, the
doctor has deposed that any sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix was about four days before the examination whereas
she was examined on 15.08.2016 at about 10 AM, which is within
the hours of the alleged incident. The doctor deposition that her
mental state was normal is also on record. No physical injuries on
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:20:28 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLA-351/1988]
examination is also reflected in the doctors deposition. The Pent
and 'Salwar' which were the clothes being worn by the appellant
and prosecutrix also did not carry any semen.
The contradiction between the statements of PW-9 and PW-1
is also apparent, as PW-9 doctor has said that prosecutrix was
suffering from schizophrenia whereas the doctor PW-1 has taken
consent of her physical examination and has deposed that she was
in a normal mental condition.
This Court, while understanding the probability of the
incident, finds that the medical evidence which is a neutral
evidence has damaged the prosecution case beyond recovery, and
thus, the probability of rape cannot be carried forward to logical
conclusion of conviction. The testimony of PW-1 Dr. Dharmendra
Sharma has completely shattered the prosecution case, as it has
created doubts which remained unfilled and it is not the reason to
disbelieve the same as he is a neutral witness having medical
expertise.
In light of the aforesaid observations, the present criminal
appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated
26.08.1988, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Jodhpur is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
48-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
