Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Dhapu vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:26719) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26719]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 414/2008
Smt. Dhapu W/o Shri Shrikrishan, by caste Jatia. resident of
village Hiradaser, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Rajasthan through Prosecutor.
2.Narender S/o. Sahdev. by caste Jatia.
resident of village Hiradaser, P. S. Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
3. Madha Ram S/o. Dhrma Ram, by caste Jatia, resident of
village Hiradaser, P. S. District Jodhpur. Bhopalgarh.
4.Pura Ram 8/o. Joga Ram, resident of village Hiradaser. balrwa,
Teh. -Osian. by caste Jatia, at present Village District Jodhpur.
5. Dudha Ram S/o. Joga Ram, by caste Jatia. resident of village
Hiradaser. Pipar City. District Jodhpur. at present Village
6. Mukana Ram S/o. Ladhu Ram, by caste Jatia. resident of
village balrwa. Teh. -Osian District Jodhpur.
7. Madan Lal S/o. Mohan Lal, by caste Jatia. resident of village
Bisalpur. At persent Village Mathania. District Jodhpur.
8.Budha Ram S/o. Shivnath Ram, by caste Jatia. resident of
village Hiradaser. The Bhopalgarh District Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.R. Sonel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/05/2025
1. By way of filing this instant petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 26.07.2006 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District (Fast Track) No. 1,
Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 16/2004 (arising out of FIR No.
04/2003 registered at Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur), whereby
[2025:RJ-JD:26719] (2 of 5) [CRLR-414/2008]
the learned trial court acquitted respondent Nos. 2 and 8 of the
charges leveled against them under Sections 366 and 376 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.01.2003
petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Osian alleging that on 25.12.2002 at about 05:00 A.M., she was
residing with her husband and child in a hut at the farm of one
Bhera Ram. It was alleged that Narender along with Pura Ram,
came to her hut and informed her that her mother was seriously ill
and some persons from her village had come to call her.
Thereafter, she along with her son Ramniwas, accompanied them.
It is further alleged that after covering some distance, several
other persons were found waiting with a jeep, and she was forcibly
taken away in the said vehicle. She was allegedly threatened and
taken to Suratgarh, where she was subjected to sexual assault for
about six to seven days. It was also stated in the complaint that
thereafter the accused took her to a hotel in Jodhpur, where she
was again subjected to rape, threatened, and separated from her
son. It was further alleged that she was coerced into giving a false
statement before the Magistrate.
2.1. On the basis of the said complaint, the matter was referred
for investigation to Police Station Mathania, where FIR No.
04/2003 was registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence
under Section 376 IPC. The case was committed for trial, and
charges were framed against respondent Nos. 2 and 8 under
Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The accused denied the charges and
claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined
[2025:RJ-JD:26719] (3 of 5) [CRLR-414/2008]
as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The
accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC and also led
defence evidence, producing four witnesses and exhibiting
documents marked as Ex. D-1 to D-12.
2.2. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, District (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur, vide judgment dated
26.07.2006, acquitted respondent Nos. 2 and 8 of the charges
under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment
of acquittal, the petitioner has preferred the present revision
petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely
gone through the judgment impugned and the record of the case.
4. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2006
and meticulous consideration of the entire evidence and findings
recorded therein, this Court is of the considered view that the
learned trial Court has undertaken a comprehensive and coherent
evaluation of the testimonies of the prosecutrix and other
witnesses. The Court below has cogently analysed the surrounding
circumstances, contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix
under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition before the Court, and
has rightly concluded that the allegations levelled were not proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
4.1. The trial Court has not merely relied upon the lack of medical
corroboration or delay in lodging the FIR, but has appropriately
scrutinised the conduct of the prosecutrix, which appeared wholly
inconsistent with the conduct of a victim of forcible abduction and
sexual assault. The acceptance by the prosecutrix of the fact that
she was persuaded by family members and community persons to
[2025:RJ-JD:26719] (4 of 5) [CRLR-414/2008]
return to her matrimonial home -- despite her denial of any prior
dispute with her husband -- casts a shadow of doubt on the initial
narrative of abduction. The trial Court has justifiably drawn an
inference that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied
accused Narendra, especially when she neither raised any alarm,
nor attempted to escape, nor disclosed any alleged coercion or
violation to third parties, including co-tenants or neighbours,
during the prolonged period of her stay away from home.
4.2. Further, the learned trial Court has duly appreciated the
evidentiary value of her statements under Section 164 CrPC and
her deposition, and has correctly noted the absence of any
consistent allegation of gang rape against the other co-accused.
The finding that her testimony in this regard lacked spontaneity,
was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and appeared to
be an afterthought prompted by external influence -- particularly
in light of the timing and manner of lodging the FIR -- cannot be
said to be perverse or illegal.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court's view
is a plausible and balanced one, emerging from a judicious
appreciation of evidence and is neither arbitrary nor suffering from
misapplication of law. It is trite that when two views are possible
and the view taken by the trial Court is both reasonable and
supported by evidence on record, the revisional or supervisory
jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC ought not to be invoked
to supplant the findings.
6. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or
manifest miscarriage of justice in the impugned order dated
26.07.2006 so as to warrant interference by this Court.
[2025:RJ-JD:26719] (5 of 5) [CRLR-414/2008]
Thus, the instant revision petition being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
7. Let record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
10-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
