STATE OF RAJ. Vs. CHINDERPAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondents for offences under Section 450, 366 & 376 IPC. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.10.2007, at 2:15 P.M., the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), along with her husband, Richpal Singh (P.W. 2), and her father-in-law, Puran Singh (P.W. 10), lodged a written report [Ex. P/1 (Ex. P-2/1)], wherein she claimed that in the night of 10.10.2007 around 11 O'Clock, when she stepped out of her house in order to answer the call of nature, her neighbours, Billu and Buta Singh, accused respondent No. 2 & 3, respectively, covered her face, and carried her to the house of Santa Singh. There they pointed a pistol at her, and threatened her that in case she were to raise any hue and cry, they would kill her. She further claimed that she was deprived of her gold bangles, four gold coins that she was wearing, of her earrings, of her nose-pin, and of her anklets. Subsequently, Gurnam Singh, Buta Singh, Gurdeep Singh @ Billu, Sharvan Singh, Chinderpal Singh, Palobai along with other persons, and the jeep driver took her to Buta Singh's farm situated at 3 FDM. According to her, at the farm, all the five accused persons pointed a pistol at her, tore her clothes, and ravished her. Thereafter, they left her in an unconscious state at Bhagwansar Adda. When she regained her consciousness, she walked up to the Paliwala Bus Stand; from there, she went to the Dhani of Puran Singh. Puran Singh informed her family members, who came to her rescue. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, [Ex. P/2 (Ex. R 3/1)] was chalked out for offences under Sections 450, 366, 382 & 376 IPC. During the course of investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Chinderpal Singh, Gurdeep Singh & Billu, Buta Singh for offences under Sections 376, 450, 363, 366 IPC; and against Sharvan, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, while Charges against Chinderpal Singh, Gurnam Singh were framed for offences under Sections 366, 376 IPC, the charges against Gurdeep Singh @ Billu and Buta Singh were framed for offences under Section 450, 366 & 376 IPC.

(2.) In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, and submitted twenty-eight documents. Although, the defence, did not examine any witness, it did submit two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 13.10.2011, the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondents. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Mahipal Vishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Judge has ignored the fact that the prosecutrix had given a consistent story in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and even before the trial court. Secondly, that the learned Judge has erred in looking for corroboration of her testimony. In fact, the learned Judge should not have looked for corroboration of her testimony. Hence, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused respondents.