JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. The State has lodged this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1998, passed by Sri A.K. Jain, V Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 1098 of 1994, acquitting the accused respondent Jugendra of the charges under Section 302 and 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. The victim was Km. Vineshwari aged about 8-9 years, daughter of Pitambar alias Peeta.
2. The incident took place on 24.6.1994 at about 12 O' clock noon in village Bara Gaon, P.S. Arnia, District Bulandshahr, situated at a distance of about 9 Km. from the Police Station. The F.I.R. was lodged by Pitambar alias Peeta on 24.6.1994 at 2.45 P.M. The accused respondent was allegedly apprehended at the spot. The prosecution case in broad essentials was that because of a breach in canal, water was flowing in front of the house of the informant. On 24.6.1994 in the noon, Vineshwari aged about 8 years, daughter of the informant and the informant's son Dharam Veer aged about 5 years were taking bath in that water. Kali Charan and Ganeshi PW 2 were grazing their cattle nearby. The accused resident of the same village coaxed Vineshwari to accompany him to the nearby field of Layak Singh. Dharam Veer also followed them. In his attempt to commit rape on Vineshwari, the accused put off her underwear in the field and covered her after downing her on the ground. Vineshwari cried and Dharam Veer also raised alarm. Kali Charan and Ganeshi PW 2 had seen the accused taking Vineshwari followed by Dharam Veer to the field of Layak Singh. On hearing the alarm of Vineshwari and Dharam Veer, Kali Charan and Ganeshi rushed up and gave call to the informant Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1. He and his elder son Harpal also rushed to the spot and saw that the accused was pressing the neck of Vineshwari. He strangulated her to death. After committing the crime, he tried to run away but was apprehended. It was found that Vineshwari had already died. Lifting her dead body from the field, the complainant brought the same to his house.
3. Leaving the accused in the custody of the villagers, he went to the Police Station to lodge the F.I.R. after getting the same scribed by Ram Pal Singh. The case was registered and investigation followed as usual at the hands of S.O. S.S.I. Balbir Singh PW 7. He reached the spot, prepared the site plan, inspected the dead body of the deceased and prepared the Panchayatnama as also necessary papers for post mortem. The underwear of the deceased was taken in possession and recovery memo was prepared. After being sealed, the dead body was sent for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. S.K. Sharma PW 4 on 25.6.1994 at 1.30 P.M. in the presence of another Doctor Y. Singh. The deceased was aged about 9 years and about one year had passed since she died. The following ante mortem injuries were found on her person:
(i) Abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm over right ramus of jaw extending to the neck.
(ii) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over left supra clavicular region.
4. On internal examination, larynx trachea and bronchi were found congested. Both the lungs were congested. Brain was congested. Partially digested food was found in the stomach. Small and large intestine were half full.
5. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling.
6. The defence was of denial and false implication.
7. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses out of whom Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 (informant and father of the deceased) and Ganeshi PW 2 were the eyewitnesses. Dharam Veer PW 3 could not be examined by the trial court being a child of tender age. He was found incapable of understanding the import of the questions. Dr. S.K. Sharma PW 4 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Dr. S.R.P. Mishra, PW 6 had examined the accused on 24.6.1994 and had found 4 contusions and two abrasions on his forehead, left ear, neck, left side chest and right shoulder. The rest were formal witnesses.
8. According to the trial Judge, there were holes in the prosecution case. The prosecution evidence did not commend itself to the trial Judge and he recorded acquittal.
9. The accused respondent absconded during the pendency of the appeal and consequent upon issuance of non-bailable warrant against him, he was arrested and sent to jail. Since he had no pairokar or counsel of his own to defend him, Sri S.B. Kocher, Advocate was appointed amicus curiae for him under order dated 23.5.2005.
10. We have heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned A.G.A. and the amicus curiae named above for the accused respondent. The record has been perused.
11. The submission of the State counsel is that in this case of single accused who had been apprehended at the spot, the trial Judge ignored the testimony of Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 and Ganeshi PW 2 without any sustainable reason and illegally acquitted the accused respondent. On the other hand, the amicus curiae appearing for the accused respondent urged that there were contradictions in the testimony of Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 and Ganeshi PW 2 as to whether the victim was wearing a shirt or bushirt at the time of incident and as to the colour of underwear allegedly recovered from the spot. The witnesses claimed that the victim had bled and blood was there at the spot. However, the Investigating Officer did not find any blood at the spot. The accused respondent, according to him, had falsely been implicated. He thus stood by the side of the acquittal recorded by the trial court in his favour.
12. On giving our careful consideration to the arguments advanced from the two sides and examining the evidence on record, we are firmly of the view that giving undue importance to insignificant trivialities, the trial Judge committed grave error in acquitting the accused respondent. The case against him was proved to the hilt. We intend to make our meaning clear in the discussion that follows.
13. Obviously, it is a case of single accused who was apprehended at the spot. Regarding the incident of about 12 O' clock in the noon of 24.6.1994 the report was lodged the same day at 2.45 P.M. by eyewitness Pitambar alias Peeta (father of the deceased girl) after getting it scribed by Ram Pal Singh. He had gone to lodge the F.I.R. leaving the accused respondent (who had been apprehended at the spot) in the custody of the villagers. He was formally arrested by S.I. Rajveer Singh taking him from the custody of the villagers as deposed by H.C. Mahfooz Khan PW 5 who had reached the spot after scribing the check F.I.R. and G.D. at the Police Station on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the informant. It is there in his testimony that at the time of the lodging of the F.I.R., no police personnel senior to him was available at the Police Station. Therefore, he informed the C.O. through wireless and made a request for sending a Sub Inspector to the spot. He himself proceeded to the spot and by the time he reached there, S.O. Khunni and S.I. Rajveer Singh also reached there with police force. After formally arresting the accused Jugendra, S.I. Rajveer Singh gave him in his custody to lodge him in the lock up at the Police Station, which he did. It is further to be noted that the accused, informant Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 and Ganeshi PW 2 belonged to the same village. Neither Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 nor Ganeshi PW 2 had any enmity whatsoever with the accused. The prosecution case was that in the preceding night there was a breach in the canal with the result that water was flowing at a little distance from the house of the informant. Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 deposed that at a distance of 20-25 paces from his house, small children including his daughter Vineshwari (deceased) and son Dharam Veer were bathing in the flowing water. Ganeshi PW 2 and Kali Charan were grazing their cattle nearby. The accused belonging to his own village pretendedly took Vineshwari to the nearby millet field of Layak Singh. He himself was present at his house. The shouts of Ganeshi and Kali Charan attracted him and he ran towards the millet field of Layak Singh where he found that the accused Jugendra was over his daughter Vineshwari whom he had downed on the ground and was pressing her neck. At that time, his daughter was naked without underwear. It also came down from him that the underwear of his daughter was lying nearby. Spotting him, Kali Charan and Ganeshi PW 2, the accused got up and tried to flee away but he was apprehended at the spot. Nearing his daughter, he found her to be dead. He brought her dead body from the field. The apprehended accused was also brought to the village. Then he got the report scribed by Ram Pal Singh and took the same to the Police Station.
14. Ganeshi PW 2 corroborated his ( PW 1 Pitambar alias Peeta's) statement in material particulars that he and Kali Charan were grazing cattle when they heard the sound of weeping of the girl from the field of Layak Singh. He and Kali Charan ran towards Layak Singh's field shouting and saw that Jugendra accused had downed Vineshwari in the field and was trying to have intercourse with her, pressing her neck with the help of the bushirt of the girl. He was apprehended at the spot. Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 had also reached there on the shouts raised by him (PW 2) and Kali Charan. Ganeshi's field is depicted in the site plan also prepared by the Investigating Officer. He clarified that while running towards the field of Layak Singh, he had shouted calling Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 by name. He, too, stated that when he reached the spot, the accused was over the girl and further that her underwear was lying nearby. It also came to be stated by him that the canal used to run by the side of the Abadi of his village. It was also stated by him that the spot was only three fields away from the place where he was grazing cattle. In terms of paces, the distance was about 100 paces. It has been testified by this witness that the distance of the house of Pitambar from the place of flowing of water was 50 paces and the distance of the house of Pitambar from the field of Layak Singh's millet field was 2-3 Bighas.
15. It has come down from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, S.S.I. Balbir Singh PW 7 that there was water in about half kilometer area and it was at a distance of about 15 or 20 paces therefrom that Kali Charan and Ganeshi were grazing cattle. When the witnesses are rustics, their behavioral pattern and perspective have to be judged as such. While examining the evidence of such witnesses we have to inform ourselves that variances on the fringes, discrepancy in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishment in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony when there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of the testimony delivered, as is the situation here. We do not see any material discrepancy whatsoever in the testimony of Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 and Ganeshi PW 2. Natural variations are always there in the testimony of truthful witnesses. One hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a little exaggeration or embroidery either attributable to overzeal or uttered under the stress of cross-examination.
16. The so called contradiction as to whether there was shirt or bushirt on the person of the deceased is hardly material. Shirt and bushirt are not different in appearance and shape. The apparel called as shirt or bushirt is meant to cover the middle part of the body. The F.I.R. stated that the accused strangulated Vineshwari with the help of her shirt. The informant Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 stated in his cross-examination that she was strangulated by a piece of her bushirt. It was not a contradiction if he stated in his cross-examination that she was strangulated with the part of her bushirt and Ganeshi PW 2 also described it as a bushirt. It is said that surer way of misinterpretation is to interpret literally, unconcerned of surrounding facts and related background. The shirt or bushirt is one and the same thing. The Doctor conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased had recovered shirt from the dead body which was in two pieces. It is obvious that driven by the animal desire to commit rape on the minor girl aged about 9 years, the accused while downing her in the field, tore her shirt and used part of it to throttle her. It was not wrapped around her neck as a ligature but only part of the shirt was placed on front side of her neck to throttle her with his hands.
17. As regards the colour of the underwear of the deceased found lying on the spot, in the memo Ex.Ka-2 prepared by the Investigating Officer, it has been described as torn printed underwear of red, white, yellow and black colour while Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 described it as printed of green colour in his cross-examination on 26.2.1997 and Ganeshi PW 2 gave its colour as red on the said date (26.2.1997). It has to be kept in mind that the incident took place nearly three years back on 24.6.1994. Nobody could be expected to remember the exact colour(s) of a printed underwear after a lapse of about three years. Variation in the statement of Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 and Ganeshi PW 2 as to the colour of the underwear of the deceased is wholly immaterial.
18. The deceased did not sustain any bleeding injury. Two rustic witnesses seemingly stated to have seen blood on the spot under the stress of cross-examination. It does not go to the root of the matter at all.
19. We note that a suggestion was given to Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 in his cross-examination that his daughter died of drowning while taking bath in the canal and Jugendra had gone to save her but he was falsely implicated. We should say as a passing reference that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused stated that he had been caught from his house and beaten up at the Police Station.
20. Normally, a close relative of the deceased would be most reluctant to spare the real culprit(s) and falsely substitute other(s) for him/them. Neither the informant Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 (father of the deceased) nor Ganeshi PW 2 had any animus whatsoever against the accused. It does not get down the throat that he would be falsely implicated though he had gone to save the drowning girl. We should also observe that the theory of her death by drowning is completely shattered by the post mortem report. No water was found in her stomach. Rather, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling. So, the post mortem report completely reconciles with the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case.
21. Certain injuries were found on the person of the accused in the form of 4 contusions and 2 abrasions at the time of his medical examination on 24.6.1994 at 7 P.M. They indicate that as natural reaction, the witnesses (who apprehended him) and others around gave him a thrashing for his grave criminal act.
22. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court's granting acquittal to the accused respondent is illegal, perverse and wholly against the weight of the evidence on the record. Wrongful acquittals are undesirable. If the concept of benefit of doubt is extended indefinitely beyond permissible limits, there would come a point breaking down the whole system of justice, leaving the society in a state of chaos. In appeal against acquittal, the powers of the High Court in dealing with the case are as extensive as of trial court. No doubt, if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible and the trial court has opted for the one favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it were in the position of the trial court, it would have taken the alternative view and recorded conviction of the accused accordingly. But in this case where spot arrest of the single accused had been effected, only one view could be possible on judicious scrutiny of the evidence on record that the accused respondent attempted to commit rape on the unfortunate girl aged about 9 years and committed her murder. The ocular testimony rendered by Pitambar alias Peeta PW 1 and Ganeshi PW 2 is consistent and in conformity with medical evidence too. The accused is liable to be punished for his bestiality of attempting to commit rape on a minor girl of tender age of about 8-9 years and murdering her.
23. We allow this appeal and reverse the judgment of the lower court. The accused Jugendra is found guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Vineshwari for which he is convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He is also found guilty of the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. for attempting to commit rape on the victim Vineshwari and is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
24. The accused is reported to be in jail. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr shall ensure that the accused respondent suffers the punishment awarded to him as above. He shall report compliance within two months.
25. Sri S.B. Kocher who argued the appeal as amicus curiae for the accused respondent shall get Rs. 1000/-as his fee.
26. Judgment be certified to the court below immediately.