Skip to content


Duleh Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 1975
Judge
Reported in1980WLN(UC)334
AppellantDuleh Singh
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....given an exaggerated statement in as much as they have gone to state even that which has not been stated by mst. mohini. only on the statement of suit. mohini, in the facts and circumstances of the ease and in the absence of any injury, it will not fee safe to hold that the accused assaulted or used criminal force to smt. mohini intending to outrage her modesty.;it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded1 in bringing home tots guilt to the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.;appeal allowed - 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] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and..........to his statement, both the hands of smt. mohini had been taken by the accused under his own hands a statement not made by smt. mohini. pw 3 umaram, the other witness, states that mohini raised an alaram. he does not state that mohini was making attempts to release herself from the clutches of the accused and that the accused bad kept both of his bands over the mouth of mohini. if both the hands of the accused were on the mouth of mohini, how could the accused keep hold of the hands of mohini, as stated by the earlier witness? therefore, the statements of these two witnesses cannot be relic upon.6. after having gone through the evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.7. the appeal is,.....
Judgment:

M.B. Sharma, J.

1. The learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, has convicted the accused appellant under under Section 354, IPC and has sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix Smt. Mohini PW 1 is the wife of Bhanwarlal by carte Kumhar. The said Bhanwarlal had taken the fields of one seth Mindalal for cultivation during the year 1975. The fields arc situated at a distance of about 1 1/2 to 2 miles from the village Napasar. Smt Mohini PW 1 used to go to the fields to keep a watch and on July 30, 1975, as usual. she had gone to her field and at about 12.00 noon, was taking her meals in the field while sitting under the shadow of a 'Khejri' (tree), Her two year old child was in her lap It is alleged that the accused appellant, who was working as a labourer in the near by field came there and asked Smt. Mohini that he was feeling thirsty It is alleged that Sail. Mohini gave water from an earthen pot which she was having and after having drunk two 'lotas' of water, the accused all of a sudden caught her hands but she relieved herself. Then the accused caught her feet and threw her down. The accused made an attempt to commit sexual intercourse on her but as she struggled, the accused could not succeed. She raised an alarm, hearing which, PW 2 Heeraram and PW 3 Umaram were attracted and seeing them, the accused took to his heels. Smt. Mohini is alleged to have narrated this occurrence to the two aforesaid witnesses. She was taken to her husband from there, her husband took her to she police station Napasar and lodged a report Ex. P 1 at 4.15 pm A case was registe ed and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused who was tried by the learned Sessions judge under Section 376/511, IPC. But after trial, the learned Sessions Judge only convicted and sentenced him under Section 354, IPC.

3. None has appeared on behalf of the accused appellant and, there fore, with the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor, I have gone through the case. The defence of the accused was that the accused was friendly with Smt. Mohini and used to go to her. On that day, also, he had gone to her for water but be did not commit any offence with her and at the instance of her husband, a false case has been made up against him.

4. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Smt. Mohini PW 1 and the other two witnesses namely PW 2 Heeraram and PW 3 Umaram It may be stated here that even the learned Sessions Judge has held that so far as the evidence of PW 2 Heeraram and PW 3 Umaram is concerned, they have given an exaggerated statement in as much as they have gene to state even that which has not been stated by Smt. Mohini. Let us first see the statement of Smt. Mohini to see as to whether her statement can be relied upon. Smt. Mohini PW 1 states that on the day of occurrence, at about 12.00 noon, she was sitting under she shadow of a tree and the accused came here and asked her that he was thirsty and demanded water. She gave him water but thereafter, the accused sat behind her, caught hold of her hands, but she relieved herself Thereafter, the accused caught her feet, fell her on the ground. She raised an alarm. The accused placed one of his hands over her mouth and made an attempt to commit sexual intercourse with her. It has also been stated by her that after having caught her feet, the accused dragged her to a distance. She has also stated that she had made attempts to separate the accused by using her hands. She had also used her legs. According to her, the accused made an attempt to lavish her for about 15 minutes and during this period she remained lying on the ground but the states that no injuries were received by her as a result of dragging. If the off nee would have taken place in the manner as alleged by Sent. Mohini bed if she would have been dragged by the accused and she would have tried to separate the accused in the manner stated by her, normally, it was necessary that there should have been some marks of injury on her back and also the person of the accused because she says that she used her hard to separate the accused from her. Surprisingly, neither Smt. Mohini, nor the accused appellant, were got medically examined. Therefore, only on the statement of Smt. Mohini, in the facts and circumstances of the cage and in the absence of any injury, it will not be safe to hold that the accused assaulted or used criminal force to Smt. Mohini intending to outrage her modesty or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty.

5. So far as the other two witnesses Heeraram PW 2 and Umaram PW3 art concerned, apart from the face that the learned Sessions Judge himself has observed that they have given, an exaggerated, statement in as much m they have stated even that which has not been stated by Smt. Mohini, from the scrutiny of their statements, it can be said that no reliance can be placed. The possibility cannot be excluded that seeing few persons, Mohini might have brought a charge agaiost the accused of attempt to rape on her Heeraram PW 2 states that be saw from a distance of 70 steps from Mohini that she was lying on the ground with her face towards the (sic)ky and the accused was lying over her Seeing him, the accused ran away. Even Stat Mohini does not state that the accused was lying over her. T(sic)is witness even goes to state that when the accused ran away leaving Smt Mohini behind, Mohini was lying naked a statement net made by Mohini. According to his statement, the 'lehnga' of Smt. Mohini was lying mar about over her face and she was naked upto the waist. He states that he cannot say whether the accused was naked as only the back of the accused was towards him According to his statement, both the hands of Smt. Mohini had been taken by the accused under his own hands a statement not made by Smt. Mohini. PW 3 Umaram, the other witness, states that Mohini raised an alaram. He does not state that Mohini was making attempts to release herself from the clutches of the accused and that the accused bad kept both of his bands over the mouth of Mohini. If both the hands of the accused were on the mouth of Mohini, how could the accused keep hold of the hands of Mohini, as stated by the earlier witness? Therefore, the statements of these two witnesses cannot be relic upon.

6. After having gone through the evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

7. The appeal is, there/ore, accepted and the conviction of the accused is set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds which shall stand discharged.


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