1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.  362-363     OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.1047-48 of 2008)

State of Rajasthan …..Appellant

Versus

Hanif Khan & Anr. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division bench of the

Rajasthan  High  Court  at  Jodhpur  allowing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  respondents.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast  Track Court),  Anoopgarh, Sriganganagar

Rajasthan had convicted the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 376

(2)(g), 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).   For the offence relatable to Section 372(2)(g)  each was

2

sentenced to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for the offence relatable

to Section 302 read with Section 34 to life imprisonment and for the offence relatable to

Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for five years and in each case fine was imposed

with default stipulation. Two appeals were filed by the accused persons.   Both the

appeals were allowed.

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

On 11.04.2001 at 8.30 p.m. complainant Billu Khan son of Sayyed Khan,

resident of Badopal, Tehsil Pilibanga submitted a typed report (Ext. P-1) before the

Station House Officer, Police Station Sri Vijaynagar about the incident of this case to

this  effect  that  the  marriage  of  the  daughter  of  applicant  Julekhan  (hereinafter

referred to as ‘deceased’) had been solemnized with Bablu Khan son of Garu Khan. It

is about three years when her marriage had been solemnized. On 11.04.2001 in the

morning the in-laws of the daughter of the applicant sent an information about missing

of Julekhan while prior to this, the message had been given about the death of the

mother-in-law of Julekhan and later,  when he left from there,  he was told that his

daughter was missing, her mother-in-law has not died and the Chunni of his daughter

was found near the Dirge of the village Bolivia. On hearing this,  complainant Billu

Khan reached at the Dirge of village Bolivia. The dead body of his daughter was found

in  the  Dirge  on  11.4.2001  between   6  -  6.30  p.m.,  which  was  taken  out.   The

complainant stated that he did not know as to what has happened with his daughter.

But he also mentioned that once or twice she had complained about harassing in the

hands of her elder brother-in-law (Jeth) Hanif Khan, sister-in-law Nooran and her

3

relatives Ashaq All alias Ashaq and Attu Khan. He requested that appropriate action

may be taken.

On the above-said report Ext. P-1 Police Station Sri Vijaynagar registered the First

Information Report No. 90/2001 Exbt. P-2 and the investigation was conducted by the

then  Circle  Officer,  Rai  Singh  Nagar  Shri  Yogesh  Goel,  PW-  13.  During  the

investigation  the  Memo  of  the  Inquest  Report  of  the  dead  body  Ext.  P4,

Panchayatnama Ext. P-11 was prepared and the photographs of the dead body had

been taken vide Ex. P 25 to Ex. P30 through the photographer PW12 Happy. Treating

the house of accused Hanif Khan as the place of occurrence, the site plan of the spot

Ext. P-10 and memo of the circumstances on the spot was prepared and the Map of the

Spot Ext. P-3 of the Diggi where the dead body of Julekhan was found was prepared.

During the investigation, from the statements of the witnesses and other evidences of

the  incident  circumstances  surfaced  that  in  the  intervening  night  of  dated

10/11.04.2001 accused persons Hanif Khan, Ashaq Ali alias Ashaq and Attu Khan K

consumed liquor  while   at  the  house  of  Hanif  Khan in  excess  quantity  and after

consuming liquor they took deceased Julekhan to the room and all the three committed

rape on her turn by turn and when they found that Julekhan had lost her consciousness

and death was imminent then all the four accused persons threw her into a pit to show

that Julekhan has committed suicide. Julekhan is the wife of DW3 Bablu Khan, the

real younger brother accused Hanif Khan who had been sleeping there in the house in

the night of the incident being in her matrimonial home. As per the prosecution story

about four-five months ago on the day of the incident husband of Julekhan namely

Bablu Khan and her mother- ion-law Raja had gone towards Fazilka (Punjab) to feed

4

the animals and on the day of the incident, both of them were not present at their house

at Village Bolivia. The eyewitness of this incident is PW-2 Arsa, who happens to be the

wife of accused Hanif Khan and who unveiled the curtain of this criminal act of rape

and murder. Arsa had also revealed that accused Nooran who happens to be her sister-

in-law and sister of accused Hanif Khan was present at the place of occurrence at the

time of the incident and she rendered the fullest cooperation to the co-accused persons

in commission of this crime and worked as an instigator. On having disclosed the above

stated  incident  by  Arsa  in  her  police  statement  Ext.  D-2  recorded on  12.4.2001,

Investigating officer recorded the statements of other witnesses also. The postmortem

of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 12.04.2001 itself. Report Ext. P-13

was obtained. The shirt (Jamfar) and bra of the deceased were seized vide Memo. Ext.

P-15 and the same was sealed with specimen seal. On having recovered one pair of

nylon chappals and one Chunni near the Diggi, those were seized vide Memo. Ext. P

16.  Accused  persons  were  arrested  and  except  accused  Nooran,  the  medical

examination of all  the three accused persons was done to find out whether they are

competent to perform sexual intercourse or not.

During the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Julekhan vaginal swab had been

taken and slide had been prepared and her trouser (Salwar) had also been sealed.

During the investigation proceedings itself vaginal swab, slides, Salwar, Chunni and

Chappals were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for test from where the

report Ext. P-32 had been obtained.  After completing the investigation, this charge

sheet was filed in the above stated offence.  As the accused persons pleaded innocence

trial was held.

5

It is to be noted that one M. Nooran also faced trial alongwith respondents.  The four

accused  persons  faced  trial  for  alleged  commission  of  offences  punishable  under

Section 376(2)(g),  302,  201  and 120  B  so  far  as  three  male  accused  persons  are

concerned and in respect of accused Nooran under Section 109, 302, 201, 120(B) IPC.

As noted above the present appellants had filed appeals before the High Court.  There

was no appeal filed by accused M. Nooran.  Before the High Court primary stand was

that the complainant had not stated in the complaint as to what PW2 – the alleged eye

witness is  supposed to have told the complainant.  The High Court accepted it  and

without  even  discussing  the  evidence  of  PW2  held  that  PW2  did  not  have  any

knowledge of the incident. Accordingly the appeals of the respondents were allowed.

Additionally,  Nooran who did not prefer an appeal  was held to be entitled to the

benefit of doubt and her conviction was set aside.   

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the High Court’s  reasoning is  palpably wrong and the High Court could not have

discarded the evidence of the eye witness PW2 even without discussion of her evidence.

Merely because the complainant had not indicated in the complaint as to what PW2

allegedly had told him, it cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of PW2 who is

none else than the wife of accused Hanif Khan.   

5. Learned counsel  for  the  respondent  on the  other  hand supported  the

judgment of the High Court.  

6

6. We find that the judgment of the High Court is practically unreasoned

and shows complete non-application of mind.  The only reason which can be culled out

from the impugned judgment of the High Court to direct acquittal reads as follows:

“Absence  of  details  leave  us  to  one  inference  only  that  PW1 Billo  Khan had no

knowledge of any fact as alleged by him in relation to the accused when he scribed

Ex.P1. The necessary corollary of the above drawn inference is that PW1 Aarsha had

also  no knowledge  of  what  she  had stated  in  her  subsequent  statements,  because

whatever she had known, she had already informed to PW1 Billo Khan.”

7. Even the High Court had erroneously held that until the evening of 10th at

8.30 AM when Exh. P1 was submitted to the police, the two witnesses had not known

about the manner of incident.  Even the High Court had noted the date wrongly. It is

actually 11th and not 10th as noted by the High Court.

8. Trial  court  had  analysed  the  evidence  of  PW2  in  great  detail.   The

complainant was not an eye witness.  The complaint filed by him shows that he had got

information about the death of his daughter and how the dead body was found and in

Court he had not stated that PW2 had told her anything.  PW2 has only stated that the

dead body of the deceased was taken out by her father with the help of the villagers.

She has also stated in the cross examination that police was present at the spot when

Billu Khan (PW1)  arrived there.   There  is  no evidence or  any discussion or talk

between PW1 and PW2 before the complaint was filed by PW1.  

7

9. Above being the position, the High Court’s order is clearly unsustainable

and is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.

10. The appeals are  allowed.

          …………..…………………..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

    …..…………………………..J.              (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi: February 23, 2009