STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The accused, feeling aggrieved by this order filed an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 423/78, in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The said appeal came up for hearing Before a learned single Judge, who by his judgment and order dated 15th March, 1988 (reported in 1988 (1) Raj LW 278) reversed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted , the accused. With regard to the prosecution version regarding the incident having happened on the morning of 23rd October, 1976 in the cattle-shed of PW 5, the learned single Judge observed (para 9):

(3.) Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, submitted that the prosecutrix is a young woman belonging to the rural folk who had no reason whatsoever to falsely involve the accused in such a serious crimi, No motive for such false involvement has been shown and it is difficult to believe that she would stake her chastity by making such a false allegation. She had known the accused since about 5 or 6 years because he had come to take her sister-in-law at the time of the Muklawa (send-off) ceremony after marriage. She had no quarrel or enmity with the accused and, therefore, it is difficult to believe that she would level false allegation involving her chastity against the accused. The version of the accused that this was a counter blast to his complaint against PW 5 is difficult to accept. Her husband who was serving in the Army had come on leave and it is difficult to imagine why she should stake her reputation to falsely involve the accused. Equally it is difficult to believe that PW 5 would risk his wife's reputation to get even with the accused. The entire approach of the learned Judge, contends counsel, seems perverse. It is this approach which made him doubt the testimony of the prosecutrix as well as the two independent witnesses PWs 4 and 7. He also submitted that because the prosecutrix was a married woman, ordinarily one would not expect injuries on her person if she had sexual intercourse with her husband. Such injuries on the back and the elbow joints as well as on the vaginal walls are testimony of the fact that she had put up a struggle -in the course whereof she sustained abrasions. As she was not a Billing person and was a victim of a forcible sexual assault, there were injury marks on her vaginal walls leading to inflammation and swelling. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Judge in the High Court tried to brush aside this corroborative piece of evidence on the ground that since her husband was in the village, she must have sustained these injuries while having sexual intercourse with him. Mr. Gupta, therefore, submitted that this approach of the learned single Judge runs counter to common knowledge. Mr. Gupta pointed out that the approach of the learned Judge was almost biased against the prosecution which is betrayed by his observation that she stopped weeping because she may have been a consenting party which is nobody's case. He submitted that there was no valid reason for doubting the testimony of the prosecutrix and the two eye-witnesses as well as her husband in regard to the commission of the crime by the accused person. As regard the delay in lodging the complaint, Mr. Gupta submitted that on account of threats, social compulsions and natural reluctance to make such matters public there is always hestitation in approaching the police where the reputation of a woman is at stake. Hence it would not be proper to throw over-board the prosecution's case only on the ground of delay. We see considerable force in the submissions made by Mr. Gupta.