State vs Megh Nath
2022 Latest Caselaw 6567 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 491/1993

State

----Appellant Versus Megh Nath

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

06/05/2022

1. In the 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 the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. In the present criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-

State, a challenge is laid to the judgment dated 30.03.1993

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in

Sessions Case No.21/92 (12/89), whereby the accused-

respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him

for the offences under Sections 376, 357 & 114 IPC.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

appellant-State submits that a verbal report was lodged by

complainant-Smt. Aasi (also referred to as 'prosecutrix') before

the Police Station, Dungargarh, to the effect that two years prior

to lodging of the said report, upon the death of her father-in-law,

her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.500/- from the accused-

(2 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

respondent Meghnath; in lieu of such loan, the complainant

alongwith her husband worked in the field of the accused-

respondent, so as to enable them to repay the said amount, which

they successfully repaid accordingly.

3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the

complainant further alleged that one day prior to lodging of the

report, while the complainant alongwith her husband was going

for road works, the present accused-respondent alongwith one

Mohanram, met them outside their village, and made a demand of

the aforementioned amount of Rs.500/-; the complainant and her

husband told the accused-respondent that the said amount was

repaid by them, as they worked in the field of the accused-

respondent, in lieu of repayment of such loan amount; thereafter,

scuffle took place between both the parties.

3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that as per the

aforementioned report, thereafter, owing to the illness of the

complainant's mother-in-law, her husband went to her mother-in-

law to take care of her, while the complainant stayed in her own

Saal.

3.3 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at about 3

o'clock in the night, while the complainant/prosecutrix was

sleeping, the accused-respondent alongwith Mohanram (armed

with Barchhi) came and broke open the door of her Saal, as a

result of which, she woke up immediately and they were clearly

identified by the prosecutrix as the accused were clearly visible in

the light of Chimni; when the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, the

said Mohan Ram restrained her from doing so by saying that she

will be badly beaten with the said Barchhi; thereafter, under such

threat, she was subjected to rape by the accused-respondent

(3 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

Meghnath, and after that, while the accused were trying to run

away, the prosecutrix raised hue and cry, as a result of which, her

husband and some of her neighbours came out, but on count of

Mohanram armed with Barchhi, both the accused could not be

intercepted.

3.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that on the basis of

the aforementioned report, a case was registered against the

present accused-respondent Meghnath as well as his accomplice

Mohanram for the alleged offences and the investigation

commenced accordingly. After due investigation, the police filed a

charge-sheet against both the accused persons for the offences

under Sections 376, 457 and 114 IPC before the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh; but owing to the

charge under Section 376 IPC, the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions, Churu, from where the case was sent to the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu ('trial

court') for the necessary trial and adjudication.

3.5 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after filing of

the aforementioned charge-sheet, the said accused-Mohanram,

without any reason and explanation, did not turn up for trial, and

accordingly, his bail bonds and sureties were forfeited, followed by

issuance of arrest warrant against him; despite issuance of the

arrest warrant, when the presence of accused-Mohan Ram could

not be secured, he was declared absconder on 26.06.1991 and a

standing warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him

and it was also ordered to initiate the proceedings under Section

82 Cr.P.C. against him.

3.5 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned trial

court on 26.06.1991, framed the charges against the present

(4 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

accused-respondent-Meghnath for the offences under Sections

450 and 376 IPC; the accused-respondent denied the said

charges, and claimed trial; accordingly, the trial commenced.

3.6 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned trial

court however, vide the impugned judgment dated 30.03.1993,

acquitted the present accused-respondent Meghnath only, from

the charges levelled against them; however, qua the other

accused Mohanram, owing to the factum of his being declared an

absconder, his acquittal could not be made, for the reasons

mentioned in the impugned judgment; also in regard to accused-

Mohan Ram certain directions were also given in the impugned

judgment.

3.7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned

trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of

acquittal in favour of the present accused-respondent Meghnath,

without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before the

court; further the learned trial court has also erred in arriving at

the conclusion that the reliability of the prosecution witnesses and

evidence was questionable, which casts a serious doubt upon the

case of the prosecution.

3.8 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits the learned trial court

has also failed to appreciate the fact that the present criminal

proceeding involved commission of a heinous crime, like rape,

wherein the testimony of the prosecutrix alone, upon being

consistent, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty, to be punished

accordingly, and such punishment is required to commensurate

with the gravity of the offence of rape.

3.9 Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that the learned

trial court on count minor consistencies in the prosecution

(5 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

evidence, has drawn the conclusion regarding acquittal of the

present accused-respondent; while doing so, the learned trial

court has wrongly held that the criminal proceeding as launched

against the accused-respondent are fabricated one.

3.10 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned

trial court has also failed to appreciate the fact that no lady would

launch a false criminal proceeding, more particularly, with an

allegation of commission of rape, against any person, as, if it is so

done, the same would not only render her character questionable,

but would also put the reputation and social prospects of the

whole family at stake; the alleged incident was also followed by

meeting of Village Panchayat to take the accused-respondent to

task. But, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial

court without due consideration of the said vital aspect of the

case, passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.

3.11 Learned Public Prosecutor thus submits that from the

aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that the learned trial court has

passed the impugned judgment, which is not only erroneous on

fact, but in law as well, and thus, the impugned judgment passed

by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside by

this Court, thereby holding the accused-respondent and his

companion Mohan Ram guilty of the alleged offence, and

accordingly, make them liable for punishment, as carved out

under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-

respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the learned trial court

had passed the impugned judgment, after duly appreciating all the

(6 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

evidence placed before it, and after taking into due consideration

the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that despite having

adequate time and opportunity, the prosecutrix has not raised any

alarm, during the course of commission of the alleged rape by the

accused-respondent Meghnath. As regards the version of the

prosecutrix to the effect that during the course of the alleged

crime, she could not raise any hue and cry, as she was put under

threat of dire consequences at the instance of accomplice-Mohan

Ram, who was armed with Barchhi, learned counsel submits that

the said version was being thwarted before the learned trial court

successfully by the learned counsel representing the accused-

respondent before it. As per learned counsel, the said version was

dealt with in an appropriate manner by the learned trial court, and

the same was thus rightly disbelieved by the learned trial court.

4.2 Learned counsel also submits that the inconsistencies and

discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned trial court, were not

minor, as contended on behalf of the appellant-State. The said

inconsistencies and discrepancies, as per the learned counsel,

were material and major; not only this, even the depositions made

by the prosecutrix herself and her husband before the learned trial

court were completely inconsistent, as a totally different story was

put forth by them before the learned trial court, which by no

stretch of imagination, could be disbelieved by the learned trial

court, and rightly so, as done vide the impugned judgment.

4.3 Learned counsel further submits that apart from the

inconsistencies even in the depositions made by the prosecutrix

herself and her husband, it is also a matter of record that as per

the prosecutrix, the alleged commission of rape lasted for about 4-

(7 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

5 minutes coupled with resistance by the prosecutrix, which

certainly would have its traces left on the person of the

prosecutrix; but as the record and the impugned judgment would

reveal, even after commission of such a crime and resistance

there against, as per the medical evidence, no such telltale marks

(even a single injury on any of her body parts, particularly the

genitals), were found on the person of the prosecutrix during her

medical examination; such medical evidence, being an expert

opinion, is beyond any doubt.

4.4 Learned counsel also submits that it was also not

ascertainable on the part of the prosecution that the semen found

on the person (her genitals, in particular) and apparels of the

prosecutrix was that of the present accused-respondent.

4.5 As regards the argument advanced on behalf of the

appellant-State regarding convening of Panchayat to decide upon

the fate of the accused-respondent, following the commission of

the alleged rape, learned counsel submits that it is clearly

apparent on the face of the record that the then Sarpanch

(Rameshwar Lal) of the Village was having animosity with the

present accused-respondent, and thus, the verbal report in

question, as submitted by the prosecutrix before the police, was in

fact written by the said Sarpanch.

4.6 Learned counsel thus submits that the aforementioned

factual backdrop makes it amply clear that the present accused-

respondent has been falsely implicated in this case, as the same

was done at the instance of the then Sarpanch, so as to enable

him to teach a lesson to the present accused-respondent, that too

on wrong premises. As per learned counsel, the said endeavour on

the part of the prosecutrix and the then Sarpanch was set at

(8 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

naught by the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment,

and rightly so.

4.7 Learned counsel thus submits that even on a bare perusal of

the impugned judgment, it becomes clear that the learned trial

court has made a threadbare analysis of each and every aspect,

material to the adjudication, coupled with equal and alike analysis

of all the evidence placed on record before it, and only after

undertaking such a strenuous exercise and adjudication, during

the course of trial, the impugned judgment was passed by the

learned trial court. As per learned counsel, such a detailed and

well reasoned speaking judgment may not be interfered with by

this Court; this is more so, when the prosecution has completely

failed to prove charges against the present accused-respondent,

beyond all reasonable doubts.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, at the outset, this Court finds that

the detailed analysis as done by the learned trial court, while

passing the impugned judgment, clearly commensurate with

gravity the offence, for which the accused-respondent was

charged, and after due trial, acquitted therefrom. Thus, the

argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-State that the

impugned judgment lacks due appreciation of the material

available on record, owing to the fact that the present criminal

proceeding involved the commission of the heinous offence of

rape, is not acceptable to this Court, at the very threshold; this is

more so when, the learned trial court has even taken due care,

while passing the impugned judgment, regarding passing the

necessary orders qua the alleged accomplice (Mohan Ram), who

was absconding in the present case.

(9 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

6. This Court finds that the version, as put forth by the

prosecutrix to the effect that during the commission of the alleged

crime, the door was not completely closed by the present

accused-respondent and his alleged accomplice Mohan Ram; if

that was so, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed, as

to what prevented the prosecutrix from raising any immediate

alarm, more particularly, in view of the admitted fact that as soon

as the door was broke open, the prosecutrix awoke; the

explanation given by the prosecutrix regarding not raising any

alarm, was tried to be substantiated on count of the threat alleged

to have been given by the alleged accomplice (Mohan Ram), who

was armed with Barchhi. There is no explanation forthcoming as

to why she did not raise any alarm as soon as the accused entered

the Saal of the prosecutrix and immediately upon the accused

being identified and recognized by the prosecutrix. Thus, such

version casts a serious shadow of doubt on the said version of the

prosecutrix, regarding not raising any immediate alarm or hue and

cry; this is more so, when her neighbours and her husband were

quite near to the place of incident, that upon hearing the hue and

cry of the prosecutrix, following the incident in question, they

immediately reached the place of such incident.

7. As regards the version of the prosecutrix in the report that

the accused-respondent and his alleged accomplice have

intercepted the prosecutrix and her husband in relation to demand

regarding repayment of the loan amount of Rs.500/-, at the time

when the prosecutrix and her husband were going for work, this

Court finds that though the prosecutrix has stated that she and

her husband were beaten up by the accused persons, as a result

of the scuffle between both the parties, but she had not made any

(10 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

mention as to how such scuffle stopped, or as to who intervened

in such scuffle; whereas her husband Jodharam in his statement

made a categorical deposition that upon intervention of two

persons, namely, Ramkumar and one other person, the scuffle

came to an end.

8. This Court finds various inconsistencies in the depositions

made, amongst others, by the prosecutrix and her husband. This

is more so when, on count of severe beatings given by the

accused, the husband of the prosecutrix was in such a state, that

he was not able to move freely and with comfort; if that was so,

as to how, as per the depositions made, on the same night, her

husband went to have gossips with the local residents, and

thereafter, at about 12:30 in the night, he went to visit and take

care of his ailing mother, and not only this, he immediately

reached the place of incident (Saal of the prosecutrix), upon

hearing the hue and cry of the prosecutrix, as raised after the

incident.

9. The investigation that took place, could not ascertain as to

whether, as alleged by the prosecutrix, she alongwith her

husband, worked at the field of the accused-respondent, in lieu of

the loan amount of Rs.500/-, as taken by her husband from the

present accused-respondent.

10. The medical evidence, as produced before the learned trial

court, clearly reveals no injury on the person of the prosecutrix,

more particularly, on her genitals; had the alleged rape been

committed, as projected by the prosecution, it cannot be safely

presumed that the same would not leave any telltale marks, more

particularly, on the person of the prosecutrix, who must have

strongly resisted such an act, in whatever manner possible.

(11 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

11. The medical evidence before the learned trial court, in the

form of chemical examination report of the semen and pubic hair

of the accused-respondent, vaginal swab, apparels etc. of the

prosecutrix, clearly revealed that the same are not sufficient to

connect the present accused-respondent with the alleged crime in

question, in any manner whatsoever.

12. As regards, the argument of animosity, between the present

accused-respondent and the then Sarpanch Rameshwarlal, who

was instrumental to the initiation of the present criminal

proceeding, as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-

respondent, this Court however, finds that the said aspect has

been appropriately and effectively dealt with and adjudicated by

the learned trial court, whereby the learned trial court has rightly

found that the story of the prosecution is very much doubtful, and

thus, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove the charges

against the present accused-respondent, beyond all reasonable

doubts.

13. Thus, this Court, in the aforesaid backdrop and observations,

finds that there is no incriminating evidence placed on record by

the prosecution so as to connect the present accused-respondent

with the alleged crime; the prosecution has further failed to prove

that the alleged incident had occurred in the same manner, as

projected by the prosecution. Thus, in the opinion of this Court,

particularly, for the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has failed

to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, so as to persuade

this Court to take a different view than the one already taken by

the learned trial court in the impugned judgment.

14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal

infirmity in the detailed and well reasoned speaking judgment

(12 of 12) [CRLA-491/1993]

passed by the learned trial court, so as to warrant any

interference by this Court.

15. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned trial court be

sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

25-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)