Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2012,Criminal Application No. 3942 of 2013

26th August, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. A.H. KASLIWAL
Respondent Counsel: Mr. D.V. TELE, Mr. B.G. DESHMUKH

Cases Cited:
Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2400 (S.C.) =2012 Cri. L.J. 3033 SC [Para 26]
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 2011 ALL SCR 1626 [Para 27]
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shankar Pandurang Kijbile, 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3869 [Para 27]
Rampal Pithwa Rahidas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 (Supp. 2) SCC 73 [Para 28]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 17 of 2012, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under sections 376 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard.

2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :-

The deceased was aunt on paternal side of complainant - Dattatraya. She was aged about 25 years. The incident took place on 17.2.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. The complainant and his brother Ramdas were at home. They heard the shouts of the deceased, which came from the side of the field of the deceased. The complainant and his brother rushed to the spot. They noticed that the accused was committing rape on the deceased. After seeing the complainant and his brother, the accused ran away. The deceased started weeping. The complainant and his brother somehow consoled her and took her to her house. On that night they kept consoling the deceased. The husband of deceased was not at home and so, no further action was taken.

3. The complainant contacted the husband of deceased on phone. After learning about the incident, the husband returned home. The incident was narrated to him. On the next morning, the male members of the family decided to take the matter to villagers, to Peace Committee ['Tanta Mukti Committee' formed for resolution of disputes in Maharashtra]. They had decided to question the accused about his act before the Committee. When they left home, the deceased consumed insecticide due to fear of defamation and insult.

4. The complainant and some relatives of deceased first shifted the deceased to Rural Hospital and then to Civil Hospital. She died on 21.2.2012 at about 8.20 a.m. The complainant gave report on the same day and the crime at C.R. No. 19 of 2012 came to be registered in Bhokar Police Station for aforesaid offences.

5. Shridhar Pawar (PW 7), Police Inspector of Bhokar Police Station made investigation of the case. He prepared inquest panchanama and referred the dead body for conducting post mortem examination. He prepared panchanamas of the spot of offence, the spot where the rape was committed and also of the spot where the insecticide was allegedly consumed by the deceased. One empty box of insecticide came to be recovered from the house of the deceased. Doctor could not form opinion about the case of death after conducting P.M. examination. The viscera was sent to C.A. Office. The box of insecticide was also sent to C.A. Office.

6. During the course of investigation, clothes of the deceased came to be taken over. The accused came to be arrested on 3.3.2012. The clothes of the accused were also taken over. These clothes were also sent to C.A. Office. Vaginal swabs of the deceased were also sent to the C.A. Office. No poison was detected in viscera. In the Trial Court the charge came to be framed for aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty. The accused took the defence of total denial. He contended in statement given under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code that that the family of the deceased is involved in the business of manufacturing illicit liquor and as Gram Rozgar Sevak, he was opposing this activity. It is his case that he is falsely implicated in the case to teach him lesson.

7. In the Trial Court, prosecution examined complainant - Dattatraya, his brother Ramdas, panch witnesses of spot panchanama, Medical Officer who conducted the P.M. examination and the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court has believed the complainant and his brother and on the basis of their evidence, the Trial Court has held the appellant guilty of both the offences.

8. For the proof of the aforesaid offences and particularly, the offence of abatement of suicide, it was necessary for prosecution to establish that it is a case of suicide. Dattatraya (PW 1) and Ramdas (PW 3) have given evidence that on 18.2.2012 when the husband and the other male persons left the residential place after taking the decision to approach Tanta Mukti Committee, the deceased consumed poison. These two witnesses have deposed that the deceased was first taken to Rural Hospital and from their she was shifted to Civil Hospital. The death took place in Civil Hospital on 21.2.2013. No statement of the deceased was recorded on the death bed. The evidence of both P.W. 1 and 2 does not show that they had personal knowledge about the consumption of insecticide by the deceased. It is also not their case that the deceased had made such disclosure to them. The record shows that the deceased was unconscious till her death. Surprisingly, the husband of the deceased is not examined by the prosecution when the deceased must have been made some disclosure to husband.

9. Ramdas (PW 3) and Investigating Officer, Shridhar Pawar (PW 7) have given evidence on the inquest panchanama which is proved as Exh. 25. In Exh. 25, opinion is mentioned that the death took place due to poisoning. Exh. 25 does not show any reason on the basis of which such opinion is formed. Death took place in the hospital on 21.2.2012 and the deceased was under treatment right from 18.2.2012. In view of these circumstances, not much weight can be given to Exh. 25, inquest panchanama. From the evidence of inquest panchanama, it is not possible to draw inference that it is the case of suicide. The evidence of Dr. Bhosle (PW 2) and Investigating Officer - Pawar (PW 7) shows that the viscera was sent to C.A. Office. The C.A. report at Exh. 48 about viscera shows that no poison, insecticide was detected in the viscera. The record does not show that the Investigating Officer had approached Dr. Bhosle to take final opinion after receipt of the C.A. report. The evidence on the record shows that the Medical Officer has not given final opinion regarding the cause of death. The defence did not cross examine Medical Officer on this point.

10. The P.M. report at Exh. 19 shows that no injury which could have been caused due to act of violence or use of force was found on the dead body. Exh. 19 shows that all internal organs were congested. There was patchy consolidation in both the lungs. The stomach was haemorrhagic at places and the medical officer noticed chronic peptic ulcer of 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. size in the stomach. The C.A. report at Exh. 50 about the Sari of the deceased shows that blood stains were found on the Sari.

11. It appears that the stomach wash was not preserved and so C.A. report with regard to stomach wash is also not available.

12. When incident allegedly took place on 17.2.2012, the F.I.R. came to be given on 21.2.2012. No explanation for this delay is given by any witness. The evidence of Investigating officer shows that he did not make attempt to collect record of treatment given to the deceased in Rural Hospital and in Civil Hospital. At Exh. 43, there is opinion of doctor showing that a requisition letter was given by the I.O. to ascertain whether there was sexual assault, rape. Exh. 43 shows that no injury was found on the person of the deceased when she was examined on 18.2.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. Vaginal swabs and viscera were collected, but nothing of relevance was detected. This record, however, creates a probability that some report/complaint was received by police on 18.2.2012 and on that basis requisition letter was given to Medical Officer and such examination was done. This record of complaint is not produced by the prosecution. Dattatraya (PW 1) has given evidence that Exh. 16, the F.I.R. is the first complaint given by him to police. His evidence shows that he did not make disclosure about the incident of rape to anybody prior to the death of his aunt. In view of aforesaid circumstances, there is clear probability that there was some complaint and that record is suppressed by the prosecution. Adverse inference needs to be drawn due to this circumstance against the prosecution.

13. From the above record and circumstances, it can be said that there is no sufficient evidence to draw inference that it is a case of suicide. All the other possibilities are open. The suggestions given in this regard to prosecution witnesses in cross examination by defence counsel cannot be used against the accused in view of the absence of any record to prove the cause of death. There was no reason for accused to have personal knowledge about the act of consumption of poison, insecticide and so suggestions in this regard cannot be used against the accused. The Trial Court has committed error in holding that on the basis of record and circumstances, inference of suicide is possible. This Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is a case of suicide. In view of these circumstances, the accused could not have been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C.

14. There is no evidence on disclosure of deceased and the prosecution is relying only on the so called direct evidence of P.W. 1 and 3 for proving the offence of rape. While appreciating the evidence of P.W. 1 and 3, it needs to be kept in mind that the provision of section 114-A of Evidence Act cannot be used against this accused in this case as there is no evidence of prosecutrix. She was aged about 25 years and this circumstance also needs to be kept in mind.

15. P.W. 1 and 3 are the nephews of the deceased. Prosecution has not examined any independent witness for proving the offence. The F.I.R. was given after 4 days of so called rape. There is no circumstantial evidence for corroboration of the case of rape. These circumstances need to be kept in mind at the time of appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 1 and 3.

16. In the evidence, P.W. 1 and 3 have stated that the incident took place at about 7.00 p.m. They have deposed that first, they heard the shouts of the deceased. They have deposed that they ran to the field and there, they noticed the incident. P.W. 1 has deposed that accused was virtually sitting over the abdomen of deceased. Both the witnesses have given evidence that the accused was using force for taking sexual intercourse. They have tried to say that the accused escaped when they tried to catch hold of him. Their evidence does not show that they were required to find the place where the incident was taking place. There are no other particulars about the incident in their evidence.

17. The Investigating Officer (PW 7) did not arrange for preparation of map of scene of offence. In such a case and when the witnesses are saying that they went to the spot of offence only after hearing the shouts of the victim, it is necessary to prepare the map of scene of offence. In such a matter, map needs to show the location of the houses of witnesses where they heard shouts. The things which may obstruct the sound waves need to be shown. The distance between the place of offence and the house of witness in straight line need to be shown. The distance which is required to be covered for reaching the spot from the place of witnesses also needs to be shown. Absence of such material needs to be treated as a lacuna in the case of prosecution.

18. In the evidence of Narayan (PW 4), a panch witness, the spot panchanamas at Exhs. 31 and 32 are proved. In the first panchanama, Exh. 31, in the hand sketch map, the field of deceased is shown, but the house of PW 1 and 3 is not shown. The distance between stone heap, stone wall, the temple and other things referred by the witnesses are not shown in Exh. 31. The temple is shown to the south of the field of deceased. On the west side of the field, a primary school of Zilla Parishad is shown. One brook runs north-west and it is situated on eastern side of the main road and it is on the western side of the field of the deceased. As per Exh. 31, one foot path starts from the main road of the village and it goes towards the field of the deceased after entering the brook.

19. There is hand sketch map on Exh. 32. In the map, the houses of persons like Devanna and probably of the deceased are shown and they are shown to the south side of the school of Zilla Parishad. The temple is shown towards eastern side from these houses. In this map, the field of deceased is not shown.

20. In the cross examination of complainant (PW 1), it is brought on the record that the houses of Raulwad and Pantamwad are situated adjacent to the house of deceased. The witnesses have deposed that Zilla Parishad school is situated at the distance of 10 ft. from the house of deceased. He has deposed that Maroti temple is situated at the distance of 15 fts. from the house of Pantamwad. The witness has given admission that there are separate roads for approaching the house of deceased and house of complainant. He has admitted that the brook is situated after the main road and after the brook, there is the field of one Maroti Savkar. He has admitted that after the field of Savkar, there is field of deceased. This substantive evidence is not consistent with the description given in Exh. 31. His evidence shows that he was not required to go through the brook as he can go to the spot of offence through play ground of Zilla Parishad. In any case, his evidence is not sufficient to draw any inference about the distance between his house and the spot of offence of rape. Ramdas (PW 3) has given evidence in cross examination that his house and the house of deceased are situated adjacent to each other. In map at Exh. 32, the house of one Devanna Poshetti Guttewad is shown adjacent to the house of deceased. Even if it is presumed that by mistake the name of Devanna is mentioned instead of mentioning it as Dattatraya (PW 1), it is not possible to ascertain the distance between the aforesaid two relevant places. The oral evidence further shows that there were structures between the spot of offence and the house of the complainant.

21. The spot panchanama at Exh. 31 shows that the foot path starts from main road of village for the field. It also shows that the distance between the starting point of the foot path and the spot of offence is 100 mtrs. It is already observed that there is no convincing evidence on the distance between the house of complainant and the spot of offence. There is no evidence on the distance between the house of the complainant and the starting point of the foot path. In any case, it can be said that the distance was certainly more than 100 mtrs.

22. The evidence of P.W. 1 and 3 shows that the main road is the only road used by traffic of the village. It shows that the people of the village visit temple of Maroti during evening time also. In spite of this circumstance, as per the version given by PW 1 and 3 only, they heard the shouts of the deceased and only they could rush to the spot to witness the incident. The spot panchanama at Exh. 31 further shows that on both sides of foot path, there are thick bushes and foot path is not visible to the persons, who are not on the foot path. This circumstance creates doubt about the case of PW 1 and 3 that they could hear the shouts of the deceased and they could see that incident was taking place at a particular spot and they directly went there. There versions do not appear to be probable in nature.

23. The incident allegedly took place at about 7.00 p.m. No reason is given by any prosecution witness for which the deceased was required to remain present in the field at that time. Though the spot panchanama shows that there was standing crop of cotton, there is no evidence to show that any agricultural activity was going on in the field. If the foot path and the things beyond that foot path are not visible from the main road, it was necessary for the prosecution to explain as to why the accused had gone there at 7.00 p.m. It is not the case of prosecution that the field of accused is situated beyond the field of the deceased or he had other reason to go towards that site at 7.00 p.m. It can be said that prosecution wanted to prove that the accused had seen the deceased in the field at odd hours and he had gone there to commit the offence. Such case does not appear to be probable in nature in view of the aforesaid circumstances.

24. Versions of PW 1 and 3 that they and husband of the deceased wanted to approach Tanta Mukti Committee shows that they wanted to make the incident public. If they were sure that it was the case of rape, they in ordinary circumstances, would have approached police first. The prosecution story could have been corroborated by examining the President of Tanta Mukti Committee, but that person is not examined by the prosecution. Such independent witness could have given evidence and could have thrown light on the real incident. The non examination of the President of the aforesaid Committee needs to be treated as lacuna in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, there are material lacuna in the case of prosecution.

25. It is already observed that there is no corroboration of medical evidence or other circumstantial evidence for proving the case of rape. The presumption under section 114-A of the Evidence Act that the prosecutrix was not a consenting party, is not available in this case as there is no evidence of prosecutrix. There is no satisfactory explanation given over the delay caused in giving F.I.R. In such a case, the other probability cannot be ruled out. This Court holds that the benefit of doubt needs to be given to the accused in respect of offence of rape also.

26. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on one case reported as 2012 CRI.L.J. 3033 (SUPREME COURT) : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2400 (S.C.)] [Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). The Apex Court has made following observations in this case :-

"However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of of defence. However great the suspicion against the accused and however, strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Vide : Tukaram and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185 : and Uday v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639 : (2003 AIR SCW 1035)."

There cannot be any dispute over the proposition made by the Apex Court.

27. One case reported as 2011 ALL SCR 1626 [Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana] was also cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. In this case, the Apex Court has discussed the effect of inconsistencies in medical and ocular evidence. Another case reported as 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3869 [The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shankar Pandurang Kijbile] was cited on the same point. So far as the effect of such inconsistency is concerned, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of every case.

28. One more case reported as 1994 (Supp. 2) SCC 73 [Rampal Pithwa Rahidas Vs. State of Maharashtra] was cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Apex Court has made following observations:-

"(37) "THE quality of a nation's civilisation," it is said, "can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law" and going by the manner in which the investigating agency acted in this case caused concern to us. In very civilised society the police force is invested with the powers of investigation of the crime to secure punishment for the criminal and it is in the interest of the society that the investigating agency must act honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure conviction because such acts shake the confidence of the common man not only in the investigating agency but in the ultimate analysis in the system of dispensation of criminal justice. Let no guilty man go unpunished but let the end not justify the means ! The courts must remain ever alive to this truism. Proper results must be obtained by recourse to proper means otherwise it would be an invitation to anarchy."

There cannot be dispute over the proposition made by the Apex Court. The propositions made by the Apex Court were in the mind of this Court when this Court considered and appreciated the evidence of prosecution.

29. The discussion made above shows that the evidence of prosecution is not complete, it is not convincing and it is not sufficient for proving both the offences. This Court holds that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. In the result, following order is passed.

ORDER

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar delivered in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2012 is set aside.

3. The appellant stands acquitted of the offences punishable under section 376, 306 of Indian Penal Code.

4. He is to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in other case.

5. Criminal Application No. 3942 of 2013 filed for bail is disposed of as the main matter is disposed of.

Appeal allowed.