State of U.P (now State of Uttarakhand) v. Shankar Lal

Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW3 Smt. Geeta Singh got married to one Amar Singh Adhikari, but she left his house and started living in her parental house in Tulsi Nagar, Haldwani. It appears that after getting decree of divorce, she got second time married in the year 1995, to one Krishna Kumar. The prosecution story is that accused/respondent no.2 Raju, who is resident of Civil Line Badaun, used to live in a rental accommodation in the house where the victim (Geeta) was living. It is alleged that accused/respondent Raju enticed PW3 Geeta and took her to village Akbarabad, within the limits of police station Tanda, in District Rampur, where 3 accused/respondents Shankar Lal and Raju confined her, and Shankar Lal committed rape on her. The prosecution story concludes with the finding that Nanhe PW2 Chowkidar of said village and PW1 Jumma Khan Village Pradhan of said village rescued the girl and took her to police station. A crime no. Nil of 1993 was registered at police station Tanda, in District Rampur, relating to offences punishable under section 366, 376 and 343 of I.P.C. against accused/respondents Shankar Lal and Raju, but the investigation appears to have been transferred to police station Haldwani, as first part of crime had taken place there. After interrogating the witnesses, and completion of investigation, charge sheet (Ex A-3) was filed against the accused/respondents Shankar Lal, Raju and one Bihari (present respondent no.3). (4) The Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nainital, on 12.07.1996, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 4 366 and 368 of I.P.C., against accused/respondent Raju; in respect of offences punishable under section 368 and 376 of I.P.C., against the accused/respondent Shankar Lal; and in respect of offence punishable under section 368 of I.P.C., against the accused/respondent Bihari. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Jumma Khan (declared hostile), PW2 Nanhe (declared hostile) and PW3 Smt. Geeta Singh (victim/complainant). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged that the evidence adduced against them was false, and that criminal proceedings were initiated against them only for extracting money by the complainant Geeta. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court found that the prosecution has utterly failed to proved charge of offences punishable under section 366, 368 and 376 I.P.C., against any of the accused/respondents, and accordingly the trial court acquitted them from the charge. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 07.10.1998, passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, 5 in Sessions Trial No. 529 of 1995, the state filed this appeal before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (5) Supplementary medical report (Ex A-10) on the record shows that the complainant Geeta was major. The medical report prepared on 08.09.1993, by Dr. Nisha Srivastava (Ex- A8) on the record does not suggest commission of rape on the victim. (6) PW3 Geeta, the star witness of the case, has stated that accused Shankar Lal committed rape with her. She has stated that he wanted to marry her. She has further stated that co-accused Raju (respondent no.2) had taken her to Shankar Lal. She further told that accused/respondent no.3 Bihari was also with Raju. She further told that Village Pradhan rescued her from the clutches of the accused and she lodged First Information Report (Ex A-1). (7) In the cross examination PW3 Geeta has admitted that she was earlier married to one Amar 6 Singh and she divorced him. She further stated that in 1995 she got married to one Krishna Kumar of Bareilly. She further told in the cross examination that she had earlier lodged a criminal case relating to offence of rape against one Darshan Singh. However, she has not narrated as to how accused Raju enticed her away from the house of her husband. It is not clear from the evidence on record that what was the promise given by the co-accused Raju or Bihari, due to which she left her house. The trial court appears to have taken note of this fact and expressed its reluctance to accept the evidence of this witness (PW3). (8) Apart from the statement of PW1 Jumma Khan (Village Pradhan) and that of PW2 Nanhe (Chaukidar of the village), who were declared hostile it appears that story narrated by her that she was rescued by them is not corroborated. (9) In the above circumstances, after re- appreciating the evidence, this Court finds no illegality in appreciating the evidence on record on the part of the trial court. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court has rightly held that the 7 charge of offences punishable under section 366, 368 and 376 of I.P.C, are not proved against the accused/respondents. (10) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.28.08.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)