http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  526 of 2007

PETITIONER: Naravan @ Naran

RESPONDENT: State of Rajasthan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2007

BENCH: S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     526     OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(crl.) No.  4179 of 2006)

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

       Leave granted.     This appeal by special leave is directed against the  judgment of the Rajasthan High Court confirming the  conviction of the appellant under Section  376 IPC and the  sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of  Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo  three months  rigorous imprisonment  and under section 392  IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.  1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further  three months rigorous imprisonment.  All the sentences  were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was  charged with rape on Smt. Chandi (PW-3) wife of Shri  Chhagan Lal.  He was also charged for the offence  punishable under Section 392 IPC.  The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on  25.8.1999 Smt. Chandi was selling chillies at village Singhji- ka-Khera at around 07-07.30 p.m.. The appellant Narain  came to her and told her that his brother had a shop in his  village and he will get her chillies sold at the shop of his  brother.  He accordingly got two sacks of chillies loaded into  the trolley attached to the tractor which the appellant  himself was driving.  She also boarded into the trolley.  The  appellant started driving the tractor into the jungle.  By the  time it was dark. After driving sometime he stopped the  tractor near a drain where there were "Lambool" trees  on  the pretext of answering the call of nature. The appellant  entered into the trolley and dragged the sacks  of chillies  and put them on the ground and made her to get down from  the trolley.  He dragged her beneath the trolley of the  tractor and committed rape.  She started shouting but the  appellant pressed her mouth with his hands.  Thereafter, the  appellant loaded the chillies bags into the tractor and made  her to sit in the trolley and started driving the tractor hither  and thither. He went on roaming here and there and stopped  the tractor at Seriya (a place) surrounded by cactus plants.   The appellant again made her to get down from the tractor  and forcibly committed rape.  When she started to raise hue  and cry  her mouth was shut  by the appellant.  Then again  he loaded the chillies bags and made her to sit in the trolley

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

and took her to a shed and once again committed rape.   Finally he took her to the banks of  a pond, made her to get  down from the trolley and threatened her to push into the  pond and forcibly snatched gold tops and Rs. 1,000/- and  thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence in his  tractor.  Then the prosecutrix  reached village Aakoria and  took shelter for night in the house of one Smt. Tej Kanwar  (PW-6).  It is alleged in the report (Ex.P-4)  that rape has  been committed by the appellant on the prosecutrix thrice  and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and gold tops have also been  snatched away by him  forcibly.  Based on the report (Ex.P- 4) the Police Station Kotadi, District Bhilwara issued first  information report (Ex. P-5) and registered a case under  Sections 366, 376 and 392 IPC against the appellant.  During the course of investigation, site was inspected  and site-plan was drawn, the prosecutrix was got medically  examined and her medical examination report (Ex.P-1) was  obtained.  The statement of  Smt. Tej Kanwar (Ex. P-11)  was recorded.  After completion of the investigation, the  police filed charge sheet  against the appellant under  Sections 376 and 392 IPC.  The prosecution altogether  examined 12 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12) and 18 documents  were marked (Ex. P-1 to P-18).  The statement under  Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded in which  he stated that due to enmity with Ramkunwar, Sarpanch  (PW-7) he has been falsely implicated.  Dr. Ramesh Deedwanla (PW-1) has deposed that the  appellant was well capable to commit sexual intercourse.   Ramkunwar (PW-7) has deposed that about 3 years ago  Smt. Chandi (PW-3) had come to him and informed him  about the rape committed by the appellant.  He deposed  that at that time her Ghaghra was found torn.  Ramesh  Chandra (PW-9), SHO deposed that he received a report  (Ex. P-4) on 25.8.1999 and accordingly issued first  information report (Ex. P-5) and undertook the  investigation.  He got both the appellant and prosecutrix  medically examined, seized the Ghaghra, having semen  spots on it and sealed the same  and sent it to Forensic  Science Laboratory.  Forensic Science Laboratory report is  Exhibit  P-18. In order to consider as to whether the prosecution  established the case against the appellant beyond  reasonable doubt we are required to critically scrutinize the  evidence of prosecutrix (PW-3 ) and Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6)  with whom PW-3 stayed on the fateful night and stated to  have revealed the details of rape committed on her by the  appellant.  The evidence of Ramkanwar (PW-7) who is none  other than the Sarpanch of the village who got exhibit P-4  (report) prepared and submitted, based on which FIR (Ex. P- 5)  was issued, is also required to  be carefully evaluated.   In exhibit P-4 (report) the prosecutrix (PW-3)  alleged  that while she was selling chillies  in the colony Bolon of  Singhji-Ka-Khera village  the accused came driving the  tractor at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. on 24.8.1999 and offered to  get her chillies sold in the shop of his brother in his village.   He got two sacks of chillies kept in the trolley "with the help  of persons already sitting in the trolley"  It is alleged that  the appellant had stopped the tractor near a drain where  there were "Lambool" trees and forcibly committed rape on  her.  She started shouting but the appellant covered her  mouth.  She again sat into the trolley. The tractor was  stopped at "Seriya" where the appellant again committed  rape. She again tried to shout but the appellant covered her  mouth.  He once again made her to sit in the tractor and  took her to a shed and once again committed rape.  That

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

after committing rape thrice the appellant took the  prosecutrix to the banks of a pond where he forcefully  snatched away Rs. 1000/-and gold tops  from the  prosecutrix and ran away with his tractor.  We are required to note that the persons who were  already sitting in the trolley when the prosecutrix for the  first time entered into the trolley along with her two sacks of  chillies are not examined.  Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6)  in her  deposition stated that on the frightful night  at about 10 or  11 O’clock  the prosecutrix knocked at her door and she  opened the door.  The other members of the family were  sleeping in the house.  The prosecutrix  stated that she was  the resident of Vishniya and requested her to provide a bed- sheet  so that she could sleep in the night. The material  portion of her evidence reads as: "She said \026 "give me the  bed-sheet and I shall sleep." We gave her the bed-sheet to  sleep on and she slept. She did not tell me anything else. I  also did not ask her name.  In the morning, she went from  my house."  This witness was declared hostile and subjected  to cross examination  by the Public Prosecutor.  In the cross- examination she stated that her statement was recorded by  the police.  Portion A to B of the police statement (Ex. P-11)  in which she is alleged to have stated that at the relevant  time the prosecutrix was weeping, is denied. It is  categorically stated by her that she did not weep at all.   Nothing is suggested as to why she should give false  evidence. This witness nowhere stated  to the effect that the  Prosecutrix (PW-3)  revealed anything  about accused  committing rape on her.  Ram Kumar (PW-7)  was the Sarpanch at the relevant  time of Akhepur village.  In his evidence he stated that the  prosecutrix came to him at about 8 or 9  O’clock in the  morning and told him that the appellant had committed rape  on her.  She took him to the Police Station, Kotari.  She told  him that the appellant had committed rape on her three  times.  He accordingly got the report (Ex. P-4) filed on which  he also signed.  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 pulled the  chillies sacks from the trolley.  It would be useful to re- produce her evidence for the purposes of appreciation as to  whether her statement at all could be accepted.  "The accused asked me to come to his  vaillage and to leave in the morning.   Then he dropped me at the Kankar  (rough way) and dropped my sacks too.   The accused did not say anything about  getting the chillies sold.  The accused had  said that his brother would purchase both  the sacks of chillies and asked me to  come with him to his village.  Then the  accused committed rape on me twice at  Kankar (rough way).  Then he said that  he would throw me in the pond.  On this I  said that I could come out of the pond by  swimming.  The accused at the time of  making me to get down asked me to  come down as he was not my servant  and he threw both the sacks on the  ground.  The accused committed the  rape, then he had covered my mouth and  warned me that he would cut my ear.   Then the accused ran away with tractor.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

After that I went to the village.  It was 8  O’clock at night, dogs were barking in the  village, when I met with the daughter-in- law of "Darogas".  I told her that Narayan  had committed rape on me.  Then she  said that Naran was such type of person.  The accused had snatched rupees one  thousand from me.  Accused had also  taken the jewellery from me. Thereafter I  went t5o Akodiya.  Then I slept at the  place of "Darogas" with their ladies in the  same village.  Later on I went to  Sarpanch, I do not remember his name.   After that Sarpanch took me to the  Kotadi.  Then both of us had lodged the  report at the Police Station.  Naran was  wearing white shirt and white "Dhoti".  I  was examined by the doctor.  Exhibit P-1  is the Medical Report on which my  signature is from A to B.  Exhibit P-4 is  the Police Report on which my signature  is from A to B.  My signature is from A to  B on the chik F.I.R., Exhibit P-5.  The  Police had drawn the map of the place of  occurrence, my signature was taken on  the same.  My signature is from A to B on  the map of the place of occurrence,  Exhibit P-6.  My signature is from A to B  on the Medical Slip, Exhibit P-7.  The  Police took the "Ghagra" into their  custody and Exhibit P-8 is the Memo of  recovery of "Ghagra" on which my  signature is from A to B.  The "Ghagra"  was completely spoiled."

       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  Singhpur village.  There were number of villages  between Singhpur and Akodiya.  It is also required to  appreciate that she 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 hue and cry even while passing  through the number of villages. In the first information  report (Ex. P-5) 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 (Ex. P-1) says that there were  no injuries on the body of the Prosecutrix (PW-3).  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, is it possible to believe that the  prosecutrix (PW-3) has been subjected to rape twice by  the accused as alleged?  In the First Information Report  (Ex. P-5) it is stated that the prosecutrix (PW-3) has  been subjected to rape by the accused thrice but in her  evidence she stated that she had been subjected to rape  only twice.  The accused even according to the  prosecutrix (PW-3) was driving the tractor from  Singhpur to  Bharkiya crossing through the number of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

villages.  It is not stated by the Prosecutrix (PW-3) that  she made any attempt  to get down from the tractor at  any point of time.  On the other hand, it is stated  by  her that she sat in the tractor happily.          Yet another important  aspect  of  the  matter   : In  the first information report and as well as in her  evidence the prosecutrix (PW-3) stated that she  revealed the entire episode of committing rape on her  by the accused to Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) in whose  house in the Aakodiya 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.   Smt.  Tejkanwar (PW-6) in her evidence did not state  that the  prosecutrix (PW-3) narrated the incident of rape  committed on her by the accused to her.  The evidence  of the prosecutrix (PW-3)  is full of material  contradictions.  There is no corroboration of whatsoever  from any of the witnesses more particularly in the  evidence of  Smt. Tejkanwar (PW-6) who is a material  witness. It is true the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3)  itself, if acceptable,  is sufficient  to establish the charge  against the accused but her evidence is so artificial  which cannot be accepted.          In the circumstances, we are of the considered  opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish  the charge against the appellant for the offence  punishable under Section 376 IPC.          That so far as the charge against the appellant  framed under Section 392 is concerned there is no  acceptable evidence except the self-serving statement of  the Prosecutrix (PW-3) which we are not willing to  accept for the very same reason recorded herein above.   The said charge framed against the appellant also fails.          For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the  prosecution failed to establish the charges framed  against the appellant for the offences punishable under  Sections 376 and 392 IPC. The conviction as well as  sentences imposed upon the appellant for the offences  punishable under Sections 376 and 392 IPC  are  accordingly set aside.          The appeal is allowed.          The appellant is in jail.  He is ordered to be released  forthwith unless required in any other case.