LexNARAVAN @ NARAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B NARA VAN @NARAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN APRIL IO; 2007 (S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860;· Ss. 376 and 392: i Rape-Accused allegedly raped prosecutrix thrice in a tractor-trolly C and snatched her gold tops. and cash-FIR-Charge-sheet-Trial Court found accused guilty of committing offences ulss. 376 and 392 /PC, convicted and sentenced him accordingly-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Evidence of prosecutrix is full of contradictions-Her evidence do not corroborate from evidence of any of the witnesses, fhore particularly from D evidence of PW-6, who is a material witness-Prosecutrix miserably failed to eslabiish the charges ulss. 379 and 392-Hence, the conviction and sentence as imposed are set aside and accused is ordered to be released forthwith- Criminal Trial-Evidence Act-Statement of witnesses-Corroboration. On the fateful night, when the prosecutrix was selling chillies at around E 07-07.30 p.m., the appellant enticed her and took her in a tractor, which he himself was driving. ~e stopped the tractor near a drain on the pretext of answering the call of nature and allegedly dragged her beneath tht trolly of the tractor and committed rape. She started shouting but the appellant pressed her mouth with his hands. He repeated the crime two mor.e times and at last . he took her to the banks of a pond, made her to get down from the trolly and F threatened her to push into the pond and forcibly snatched her gold tops and Rs. 1,000/- cash and thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence in his tractor. The prosecutrix reached the village and took shelter for night in the house of a lady (PW-6). Then she narrated the incid.ent to the village Sarpanch who had made a complaint i~ the Police Station. On the basis of the complaint, G First Information Report was registered under Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC against the accused. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against' the accused under Sections 376 and 392 IPC. Trial Court found the ac.cused guilty of committing offences u/ss. 376 and 393 IPC, convicted and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal, conviction and sentence H 1096 - l [email protected] 10.97 of the accused was affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. A Allowi11g the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The prosecutrix (PW-3) in her evidence for the first time in the court stated that the accused asked her to come to his village and to leave in the morning and by saying so he dropped her on the way and also B pulled the chillies sacks from the trolly. In the cross-examination the prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that she boarded in the trolley at about 5 O'clock in the evening and even by 7 O'clock they reached the village. She lllso stated in her evidence that even after the accused committed rape on her she sat in , the tractor happily. It is not stated by her in her evidence that she raised any C hue and cry even while passing through the number ofvillages. In the first information report she stated that the accused committed rape on her thrice but in the evidence she stated that the accused committed rape on her only twice and not thrice. According to her the rape was committed on her on Kankar (rough way). She did not state that she offered any resistance though she was physically very strong. Medical report says that there were no D injuries on the body of the Prosecutrix. There were no injuries on her private part It is ultimately opined that "no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, however, she is habitual to sexual intercourse." In the circumstances, it is not possible to believe that the prosecutrix has been subjected to rape twice by the accused, as alleged. [Paras 10 and 11) [1101-D; 1102-D-F] 1.2. In the first information report as well as in her evidence the prosecutrix stated that she revealed the entire episode of committing rape on E her by the accused to PW-6 in whose house in the village she slept on the fateful night. She also stated about the accused's snatching of Rs. 1,000/- from her and also some jewellery. However, PW-6 in her evidence did not state F that the prosecutrix narrated the incident of rape committed on her by the accused to her. Thus, the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of material contradictions. There is no corroboration. of whatsoever from any of the witnesses more particularly in the evidence of PW-6. [Para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.