Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the Trial Court's judgement and record.
This Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order of the Special Judge, S.C.S.T. Act, Agra dated 5.2.2004 acquitting the accused-respondent under sections 376 IPC and 3 (2) (5) of the S.C. S.T. Act.
A report was lodged at 5 p.m. on 22.9.1999 by P.W. 2 Phauran Singh that his wife P.W. 1 Shanti Devi had gone with one Phula for cutting the grass in the field. At about 12 noon on the same day, the accused respondent caught hold of his wife and tied her mouth and raped her after threatening her. When the 'safi' which was tied on her mouth got loosened, she cried out, then P.W. 3 Phoolwati Devi and others, who were working at nearby fields arrived at the spot and the accused fled from the spot.
The Trial Judge acquitted the accused-respondent on the ground that F.I.R. was lodged with some delay. The medical evidence does not corroborate the account given by P.W. 1. There were no marks of injuries on her body and the Pathologist report did not show presence of any dead or live sperm. The witnesses other than P.W. 3 have not supported the prosecution case. The I.O. has not been produced and even the G.D. entry was not brought on record.
Learned A.G.A. argued that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix.
Having examined the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that P.W. 1 Smt. Shanti has stated in her evidence in Court that she has gone alone on a public taxi to lodge the report. P.W. 3 has admitted that husband of the victim was called subsequently by the police, when the report was lodged. A woman, who has been a victim of rape and was not a consenting party would not have mustered enough courage to have gone alone on a taxi to lodge the report without her husband and other family members. The accused-respondent was known to the victim from before. This Court in Gokul vs. State of U.P., 2003 (46) ACC, 174 has mentioned that when there was no injury on the victim and even her broken bangles etc. had not been found on the spot there were reasons to doubt whether the prosecutrix was raped indeed, as there was no corroboration of the charge of rape. In Laliram vs. State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 902 Aman Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497 and Radhu vs. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 847 the Apex Court after holding that presence of injuries are not necessary to establish a charge of rape, but in the aforesaid law reports it has not been believed the charge of rape in the absence of corroborative injuries, if other circumstances to corroborate the testimiony of the prosecutrix were absent or her evidence appeared untrustworthy for any other reason.
On examining the Trial Court's record, we do not find that the accused was having any criminal history and he was not involved in any similar case earlier. The absence of live or dead spermatozoa and absence of injury show that there was no corroboration of the allegation that the victim had been raped. In our opinion, another reason why corroboration is necessary in such matters, because by filing an F.I.R. under section 376 IPC by S.C./S.Ts., the victims become eligible for compensation. It is also necessary to rule out consent when charges of rape are made. The Trial Court judgement is dated 5.2.2004. The Government Appeal was filed with delay, which was condoned. Now the Government Appeal has come up for admission after almost 8 years and the hearing of the Government Appeal, if it was admitted will also take a very long time. We are of the view that the view taken by the Trial Judge was a possible view under the circumstances. The law of appeal against acquittals is clear that if two views of the evidence were possible, the view taken by the Trial Court should not be interfered with unless the same was perverse or unreasonable.
In this back ground, we see no illegality and perversity in the judgement of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. It is upheld.
Accordingly, application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.2.2012 HSM