The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajaram @ Raja

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 637 of 2016

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAJARAM @ RAJA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the Appellant­State of

Madhya Pradesh by special leave against the impugned order dated

12.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at

Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2005, wherein, High Court

allowed the appeal preferred by respondent herein and set aside the

order of conviction & sentence passed by the trial court on 05.04.2005 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.11.02

under Sections 376(1) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 17:19:58 IST Reason: 2

2. The factual matrix as advanced by the prosecution,

necessary for disposal of this case is that on 13.04.2004, at around

6.00 P.M., Rinky @ Inky (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) started

vomiting. The deceased was taken to Dr. Tripathi’s dispensary, but he

was not available therein. Therefore, deceased was taken to the

quarter of Dr. Tripathi. After being examined by Dr. Tripathi, deceased

was declared dead.

3. On the basis of Merg intimation/information of death of the

deceased (Ex. P/3) by Dinesh Prasad Kushwaha (PW­3), father of the

deceased, Merg No. 25/04 was registered by J.B. Singh Chandel (PW­

9). The post mortem of deceased was conducted by Dr. S.D. Kanwar

(PW­6).

4. Thereafter, on Merg Inquiry, it was found that respondent

herein committed rape on the deceased, who under depression,

committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. On this basis,

K.N. Banjare (PW­7) registered Crime No. 181/04 for the offence

punishable under Sections 376 and 305 of IPC at Police Station,

Jaisingh Nagar and the case was investigated. Respondent was

apprehended in the crime and he was arrested accordingly. Thereafter,

medical examinations were conducted by Dr. Piyush Nigam (PW­1)

and other investigations by K.N. Banjare (PW­7) took place. On 3

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

respondent and the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial.

5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No.

173 of 2004, vide order dated 05.04.2005, convicted the respondent

under Sections 376(1) and 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo

10 year Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 500/­, and in

default, three months Simple Imprisonment in both the counts.

Further, each of the sentence(s) was ordered to run concurrently.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence,

respondent approached the High Court in appeal and the High Court

vide impugned order dated 12.01.2009, allowed the appeal and set

aside the conviction and sentence imposed on respondent by the Trial

Court.

7. Heard Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

appellant and Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for appellant i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh

mainly relied upon the evidence of Anju Kumari (PW­4), sister of the

deceased and Dinesh Prasad Kushwaha (PW­3), father of the

deceased.

9. We have thoroughly examined the evidence of

abovementioned witnesses and also the evidence of Dr. Piyush Nigam 4

(PW­1) and Dr. S.D. Kanwar (PW­6).

10. Anju Kumari (PW­4), who is stated to be 12 years of age,

categorically stated in Para 12 of her cross­examination that on the

next day of incident, when the police came, she did not tell anything

about the incident to the police. Subsequently, after a week, police

came again and at the instance of police, she made a statement. She

also admitted that she was threatened by the police and due to that,

she has made a statement in support of the prosecution case. It has

been held in Bhagwan Singh and Others vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3

SCC 21, that ‘if the case is based on evidence of child witness, court

should seek corroboration from other evidence’. Further, it was also

held that ‘if possibility of tutoring the child witness appears to the court,

it should be careful in accepting the evidence’. Therefore, it is difficult

for this court to rely on uncorroborated testimony/evidence of a 12

year old girl, who is very likely to have been tutored or under influence

while giving her testimony.

11. Another evidence relied upon by the appellant is that of

Dinesh Prasad Kushwaha (PW­3), who lodged Merg intimation (Ex.

P/3) on the same day of incident i.e. 13.04.2004 at about 4.00 P.M., in

which inter alia he stated that he scolded her daughter i.e. the

deceased and resultantly she took poisonous substance. It is also 5

worthwhile to note here that there is no mention in the Merg

Intimation that the deceased told PW­3 about commission of rape by

respondent and as a result deceased committed suicide due to

depression or self­torment, after being raped by respondent. In view of

the above, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence of PW­3

is not reliable at all.

12. In the instant case, except the evidence of PW­3 and PW­4,

there is no other material or medical evidence to support or

substantiate the case of prosecution. In a case of acquittal by the High

Court, the State has to make out a strong case to interfere with the

impugned order. Until and unless, there is some perversity or non­

consideration of the material facts, it is not proper to interfere with the

order of acquittal passed by the High Court. Similar view was taken by

this Court in the case of State of Kerala & Anr. vs. C.P. Rao (2011)

6 SCC 450.

13. Similarly, in the case of ‘State of U.P. vs. Punni & Ors.’

(2008) 11 SCC 153, it was held that­

“11. In any view of the matter, we are of the view that this Court, while dealing with the order of acquittal of the High Court, would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the High Court unless it is satisfied that such finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the appraisement of evidence or such finding was perverse or arbitrary.” (emphasis supplied) 6

14. In State of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh (1995) 2 SCC 486, this

Court, on the same lines, held that “if the order of acquittal was not

perverse or palpably erroneous, this Court would not interfere with such

finding of the High Court acquitting the accused/respondents from the

offences charged against them”.

15. In the light of above­stated findings, reasons and

discussions, we find no merits in this appeal to interfere with the

impugned order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the instant

appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

…..….……………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

…...….……………………J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 24, 2018. 7

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s).637/2016

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAJARAM @ RAJA Respondent(s)

(PART HEARD BY: HON. N.V. RAMANA AND HON. MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.)

Date : 24-10-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

For Appellant(s) Ms.Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr.B.N.Dubey, Adv. Mr.Mukesh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Nidhi, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits in

terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)