Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.526 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8664 of 2014)
Ganga Prasad Mahto ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Bihar & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 30.01.2014 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl.A.
No.251 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.03.26
17:53:45 IST
Reason:
the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld
1
th
the order dated 24.04.2002 of the 4 Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions
Trial No.233 of 1999.
3. The appeal involves a short point as would be
clear from the facts stated infra .
4. The appellant was prosecuted and eventually
convicted for an offence punishable under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the Sessions
Judge. The conviction and sentence was upheld by
the High Court. The appellant (accused) is now in
appeal in this Court against his concurrent
conviction/sentence.
5. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the two
Courts below were justified in convicting the
2
appellant for an offence punishable under Section
376 IPC.
6. PW 3 lodged a complaint on 15.12.1997
complaining therein that the appellant in the
previous night at around 8.00 PM entered into her
house when she was alone and threatened her by
showing pistol and committed rape on her. This, in
substance, was the allegation in the FIR, which was
lodged by PW3 on the next day of the incident.
7. The prosecution examined three witnesses.
Hari Narain Singh (PW1) is the husband of the
complainant. Ram Udgar Singh(PW2) claims to be
the person living near the complainant’s house and
PW3 is the complainant(prosecutrix).
8. As mentioned above, the Sessions Judge and
the High Court convicted the appellant placing
3
reliance on the evidence of three prosecution
witnesses.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned order.
10. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has
failed to prove the case of rape alleged against the
appellant at the instance of the complainant(PW3).
This we say for the following reasons:
11. First, the complainant was not examined by
the Doctor after the alleged incident. Second, in
absence of any medical examination done, the
prosecution did not examine any doctor in the trial
in support of their case; Third, it was not disputed
that similar type of complaints were being made in
past by the complainant against other persons also
4
and such complaints were later found false; Fourth,
it was also not disputed that there was enmity
between the appellant and the husband of the
prosecutrix, due to which their relations were not
cordial; Fifth, it had also come in evidence that the
prosecutrix was in habit of implicating all the
persons by making wild allegations of such nature
against those with whom she or/and her husband
were having any kind of disputes; Sixth, there was
no eye witness to the alleged incident and the one,
who was cited as witness, i.e., PW2 was a chance
witness on whose testimony, a charge of rape could
not be established; and lastly, so far as PW1,
husband of the complainant, is concerned, he
admitted that he was away and returned to village
the next day morning of the incident.
5
12. In the light of the aforementioned seven
reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case of rape
alleged by the Complainant(PW3) against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In other words,
there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to
prove the commission of the offence of rape by the
appellant on PW3 and the evidence adduced is not
sufficient to prove the case of rape against the
appellant.
13. Both the Courts below were, therefore, not
justified in convicting the appellant for an offence
punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years. He was entitled for acquittal.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned
6
order is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from
the charges leveled against him. He is accordingly
set free. His bail bonds are accordingly discharged.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 26, 2019.
7