STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NAHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the State and leave to appeal was granted on 28-7-80. Before proceeding with the case I may narrate the facts as follows.

(2.) I have heard learned P. P. as well as learned counsel for the accused respondents and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel has cited Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan; (1991) 1 SCC 166 : (1990 Cri LJ 2276) wherein it has been observed that interference by this Court in judgment acquittal by the trial Court is called for in case of perversity or misreading of evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited Deenath v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 674 : (1980 Cri LJ 921) wherein it has been observed that if the trial Court's view is reasonably possible. High Court should not reverse the order of the acquittal merely on the ground that a different view of evidence was possible. Learned P. P. agrees with these propositions of law but has relied on AIR 1996 SC 1393 : (1996 Cri LJ 1728) State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and has submitted that the testimony of prosecutrix should be accepted. He submitted that in view of this citation testimony of the prosecutrix is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitated looking for corroboration of her statement. this Court should find on difficulty to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed in this citation that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. So what I have to see in this case is if the learned Sessions Judge was right in not relying upon the statement of Smt. Chothi who is prime witness of the prosecution?

(3.) P.W.-5 Mst. Chothi was examined on 21-11-80 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge before whom she stated that her husband had sent her to collect fodder from the field and when she was going to the field she was caught by both the accused respondents who felled her on the ground and committed rape with her. According to her statement it was Nahar Singh who first did the nefarious act and thereafter Chell Singh performed the same Act. According to her Dhanna her uncle-in-law had come over there whom the accused respondents saw and ran away. She exaggerated even in examination-in-chief by saying that she bleeded per vagina at the time when the sexual act was committed because she was having menses. She also stated that her uncle-in-law Dhanna had also come and saw the occurence. She admitted that she was examined by Dr. S. P. Purohit. P.W.1 Dr. S. P. Purohit examined her on 5-11-79 and found that her vagina was congested and there was no visible injury on it. He stated that sexual intercourse was performed on Mst. Chothi about 24 hours before examination. She was having injuries on her cheeks but he admitted that there was no mark of violence on the back of Mst. Chothi. There were no injuries on chest, nipples or any other part of the body of Mst. Chothi. He admitted that if there was a cheek bite by teeth on the cheeks the injuries should be circular but Mst. Chothi was not having such injuries on her cheeks. Instead injuries of cheeks of Chothi were in bunch. He admitted that congestion of vagina may be due to any other reason but not because of intercourse. He admitted that lady was having menses at the time of examination and therefore, his statement that she was bleeding per vagina was correct as it was natural process. So I am of the view that report of the medical officer is of no help to the prosecution. Of course, as per the observations in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet (1996 Cri LJ 1728) (supra) corroboration in every case is not necessary but statement of the prosecutrix should be such which may inspire confidence.