STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. LAXMAN SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PW 2 Sukhbir Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-3) to Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun on 20.40.1992 alleging that the accused Laxman Singh committed rape with Smt. Makani Devi. It was alleged in the complaint that he was residing in the rented accommodation provided by Laxman Singh (accused-respondent). On 19.04.1992, when the informant went outside his house to earn wages, and his wife Makani Devi along with their child was present at home, the landlord Laxman Singh came around 6:00 p.m. Laxman Singh approached informant's wife, dragged her and committed rape with her on the cot. Victim raised an alarm. Laxman Singh fled away from the room. In the meantime, the informant came along with his theli (handcart).
Informant saw Laxman Singh coming out of the room. Some persons of locality also came there. Victim was having menstruation. Informant could not come to lodge the first information report earlier. On the basis of such first information report, which was registered as case crime no. 135 of 1992, under Section 376 IPC in PS Dalanwala, Dehradun, investigation began. Investigating Officer took the statements of victim and other witnesses. After completing the investigation and, on being satisfied that the accused-respondent committed the said offence, submitted a charge sheet (Ext Ka-10) against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
(2.) When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC was framed against the accused-respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 04 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 1 C.V. Singh, PW 2 Sukhbir Singh, PW 3 Makani Devi (victim) and PW 4 Const. Mahak Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Two witnesses, namely, DW1 Dayal Singh Bhandari and DW 2 Laxman Singh (accused-respondent) were examined on behalf of defence. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations and said that he was falsely implicated in the case.
After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court acquitted accused-respondent of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accusedrespondent, present Government Appeal was preferred.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW 2 Sukhbir Singh, who, in his examination-in-chief, supported complaint and the contents thereof. PW 2 was the husband of the victim, who said that the accused-respondent committed rape with his wife.
PW 2 also said that he did not permit his wife to lodge the report on 19.04.1992. Informant and accused had tenant-landlord relationship. When he removed his belongings from the house of Laxman Singh (accused-respondent), only then he lodged complaint (Ext. Ka-3). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer took the petticoat of victim in his possession, a memo whereof was prepared. In the crossexamination, he said that he was residing in Laxman Singh's house for the last five months (before the incident took place).
Sometimes, his wife used to help him in earning wages. Haneef was his neighbour. He had three children. When the occurrence took place, two children had gone to their maternal uncle's home.
Laxman Singh was working in Ordnance Factory, but did not go to his office on that day. He saw Laxman Singh coming out of his (informant's) room from some distance. PW 2 never saw his wife talking to Laxman Singh. Police Station was situated at a distance of three kilometers from his room. He did not lodge the report on the same day on account of fear from the accused. PW 2 went to Laxman Singh after the incident. Laxman Singh plainly confessed his guilt and tendered apology. PW 2 refuted the suggestion of defence that his wife was a woman of easy virtues.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.