LexRAJESH PATEL versus STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 2 S.C.R. 411 RAJESH PATEL v. STATE OF JHARKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2008) MARCH 15, 2013. [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B c s.376 - Conviction by courts below - Held: In the instant case, prosecution version as narrated by prosecutrix, is most i:nprobable and unnatural - The witness who is stated to have rescued the prosecutrix from the place of occurrence and the employer of the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution 0 case - The doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix and the 10 were not examined - Courts below erred in holding that their non-examination did not prejudice the defence - Further, the inordinate delay of 11 days is fatal to prosecution case - The testimony of the prosecutrix is most unnatural and E improbable to believe and, therefore, it does not inspire confidence for acceptance of the same for sustaining the conviction and sentence - Prosecution case has created reasonable doubt - Therefore, the benefit of doubt must enure to the appellant - The impugned judgment is set aside - F Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.136 . . The appellant was prosecuted for committing rape on her acquaintance and class-mate, who was working as a nurse. The trial court convicted the appellant u/s 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years RI. The High G Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Allowing the appeal, the Court 411 H 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 The prosecution story as narrated by the prosecutrix is most improbable and unnatural. The prosecutrix is the solitary witness to prove the charge. Her version is sought to be corroborated by her mother PW2 who has supported the prosecution case on the B basis of narration of the alleged offence by the prosecutrix to her. It is an undisputed fact that both the appellant and the prosecutrix were class-mates and had good acquaintance with each other as they were exchanging books. The prosecutrix stated that on 14.2.1993, she c went to the house of the appellant to take her book and when she entered the house he locked the door from inside, and committed rape on her and threatened her with a knife; that the appellant then locked her in the house and went away; that after about half an hour, PW3, 0 a common friend of both, unlocked the room. During this period she did not raise alarm to draw the attention of the neighbours. This would clearly go to show that the testimony of the prosecutrix is most unnatural and improbable to believe and it does not inspire confidence. E [para 8] [418-H; 419-B-F] 1.2 Further, there is an inordinate delay of nearly 11 days in lodging the FIR. The explanation given by the prosecutrix is that she went to her house and narrated the incident to her mother, and on assurance of PW3 that F he would take action in the matter, her mother remained silent for 2-4 days. The inordinate delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case. The findings and observations made by the courts below in accepting the delay in lodging the FIR by assigning G unsatisfactory reasons cannot be accepted by this Court as the findings and reasons are erroneous in law. [para 9] [420-B-C; 421-B-C] 1.3 Besides, PW3, who is a common friend of the appellant and the prosecutrix and stated to have rescued H RAJESH PATEL v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 413 her from the place of occurrence, has categorically stated A that he does not know anything about the case. He has, thus, not supported the version of the prosecution. PW4 has stated in his evidence that the prosecutrix was getting nursing training privately in his chamber. He has been treated as hostile and was cross-examined by the B prosecution. In . his cross-examination he has categorically stated that he had told the police that he did not know anything about the incident. He has further stated that neither the prosecutrix nor her mother told him about the incident. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 has c seriously affected the prosecution case. [para 10 and 12] [421-D-E, F-G; 422-F] 1.4 Further, neither the Doctor, who is stated to have medically examined the prosecutrix, nor the 1.0. has been· examined before the trial court to prove the prosecution D case. The appellant was right in bringing to the notice of the trial court as well as the High Court that non- examination of the said two important witnesses has pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.