Skip to content


State of Rajasthan Vs. Champa Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 1975
Judge
Reported in1984WLN(UC)223
AppellantState of Rajasthan
RespondentChampa Lal
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....but, her two brothers have stated that sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix by champalal accused, neither the doctor has been examined, nor the injuries of mst. kanchanbai and her brothers have been proved by any other evidence.;all the three prosecution witnesses, i.e., mst. kanchanbai pw 1 and her two brothers, namely, shivnarain pw 2 and shrilal pw 3 have given contradictory statements, and the are redivergences and discrepancies in their statements, and hence, they cannot be reconciled.;appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court, is just and proper.;appeal dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] ..........have stated that sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix by champalal accused. accused champalal himself has admitted having been taken away to the badi and the offence so far as the trespass is concerned, it has been held to be completely concocted, by the learned trial court. mst. kanchanbai has accused champalal, whose field was adjacent to the field of her brothers came to her, and after making her fall down on the ground started removing her 'ghagri' and at that time, her brothers arrived there hearing her cry. shivnarain pw 2 and shrilal pw 3 to the contrary have stated in their statements that they saw accused champalal committed sexual with their sister, mst. kanchanbai. here, the important lacuna left by the prosecution is that neither he doctor has been.....
Judgment:

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. Champalal accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511, 447 323 and 324, IPC, and was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, by his judgment dated 7th February, 1974.

2. According to the prosecution, at about 8 AM on 10th November, 1970, the accused with the intention ravishing one Mst. Kanchanbai, wife of Radhakrishna first made her fall down on the ground from a 'Dingn' in Village-Vishankheda, and then, removed her 'Ghagri' and attempted to ravish her. Mst. Kanchanbai raised a cry, whereupon her brothers, Shrilal & Shivnaraian ran and caught hold of the accused. An Injury by a 'Billam' was caused to Shrilal. Shivnarain also sustained some injury.

3. After a report of the alleged incident, was made to the police, investigation commenced and a challan was submitted against the accused persons. After committal proceedings in Sessions trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, out of whom, PW 1 is Mst. Kanchanbai the prosecutrix herself; and PW 2 Shivnarain; and PW 3 Shrilal are her brothers. PW 4 Jamnalal is the Patel of the village.

4. It appears that the prosecution has conducted this case halfheartedly, as the most important evidence of the doctor, was not got Recorded; and the investigating officer himself also did not give any evidence. In this appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent, Smt. Kamla Jain he learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the acquittal of the accused deserves to be set aside and he must be convicted of the offences mentioned above.

5. The learned trial court has pointed out in its judgment that the evidence of PW 1 Mst. Kanchanbai is contradictory to the statements of her brothers namely, Shivnarain PW 2 and Shrilal PW 3. The prosecutrix in her statement has stated that no penetration or attempt to penetration was made by the accused. But her two brothers have stated that sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix by Champalal accused. Accused Champalal himself has admitted having been taken away to the Badi and the offence so far as the trespass is concerned, it has been held to be completely concocted, by the learned trial court. Mst. Kanchanbai has accused Champalal, whose field was adjacent to the field of her brothers came to her, and after making her fall down on the ground started removing her 'Ghagri' and at that time, her brothers arrived there hearing her cry. Shivnarain PW 2 and Shrilal PW 3 to the contrary have stated In Their statements that they saw accused Champalal committed sexual with their sister, Mst. Kanchanbai. Here, the important lacuna left by the prosecution is that neither he doctor has been examined nor the injuries of Mst. Kanchanbai and her brothers have been proved by any other evidence.

6. We have also noticed that whereas Mst. Kanchanbai has deposed that at the time when Champalal was lifted from over her, he Champalal inflicted 'ballam' blows to her brothers. Contrary to this, Shivnarain PW 2 has stated that Champalal had managed to escape and when he was caught for the second time, Champalal inflicted a 'Ballam' blow on the left wrist of Shivnain shrilal PW 2 has given a third story that 'Ballam' injury was sustained accidentally when he persued Champalal, who managed to escape. This, it is obvious that all the three prosecution witnesses, i.e. Mst. Kanchanbai PW 1 and her two brothers, namely Shivnarain PW 2 and Shrilal PW 3 have given contradictory statements, and there are divergences and discrepancies in their statements, and hence, they cannot be reconciled.

7. We are convinced that appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial court, is just and proper, and since we are of the opinion that no inference is called for it is not necessary to mention here in here in detail the discrepancies and the contradictions pointed out by the learned trial court in its judgment, with which we are in full agreement.

8 In the result, there is no force in this appeal, and it is hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //