[2025:RJ-JP:33308] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1462/2008 Ku. "M" D/o Rajveer Singh, Resident of Nangli Balahir, Police Station Mandhan, District Alwar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor 2. Ajit Singh son of Madan Singh, Resident of 6-KA-100, Shivaji Park, Alwar ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 158/2014 State of Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Ajeet Singh son of Madan Singh, Resident of 6-KA-100, Shivaji Park, Alwar ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwin Garg in Cr.R. No. 1462/08 Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA in Cr.A No. 158/2014 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta with Mr. Vishwendra Sharma & Ms. Shweta Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 22/08/2025 1. The above criminal revision petition as well as criminal appeal are being decided by this common judgment as they arise out of same judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by the trial court. 2. S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1462/2008 has been filed by the petitioner-prosecutrix, whereas S. B. Criminal Appeal [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (2 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] No.158/2014 has been filed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behrod, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.44/2007 (State of Rajasthan vs. Ajeet Singh) vide which accused-respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 376(2) of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and germane for disposal of the present revision petition as well as appeal are that on 06.09.2006, prosecutrix gave a parcha bayan (Ex.P/11) to the police to the effect that on 05.09.2006 at around 8.00 p.m., after having dinner, she was sleeping in the courtyard of her house. Her younger sister was sleeping with her on the same cot. Her parents were also sleeping in the same courtyard. In the night, Sunil alias Sonu, who was her neighbour and another boy came with him and Sonu pressed her mouth and other caught her legs. They forcibly lifted her from the cot and continued to press her mouth, as a result, she could not scream. They took her to Hanuman's shop. A man with Sonu, to whom she did not know, initially committed rape upon her. Sonu continued to press her mouth and caught hold her hair. Then, she became unconscious etc. 4. On the basis of said parcha bayan, an F.I.R. No.126/2006 (Ex.P/21) came to be registered at the Police Station Mandhan, District Alwar for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (3 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Behrod, District Alwar who took cognizance of said offence and committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behrod, District Alwar (for short ‘trial court’ hereinafter). 5. After hearing arguments on the point of charges, the trial court framed charge of offence under Section 376(2) of I.P.C. against accused-respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/23 documents to prove its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, which he denied and claimed that prosecution evidence was false, he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused-respondent examined two witnesses and exhibited Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/11 documents in his defence. 6. Learned trial court, thereafter, proceeded to hear the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, appreciated the evidence available on record and delivered the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2008, whereby accused- respondent – Ajit Singh was acquitted of alleged offence as stated above. Aggrieved with the same, present revision petition as well as appeal have been filed by the petitioner-prosecutrix and appellant – State of Rajasthan before this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (4 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-prosecutrix as well as Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant – State of Rajasthan have jointly submitted that prosecution has produced cogent evidence on record and established commission of rape with the victim by accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubt, but the trial court has erred in not believing testimony deposed by the prosecution witnesses and wrongly acquitted accused-respondent for alleged offence without any cogent reason. They have, therefore, prayed that this criminal revision petition as well as appeal may be allowed and the accused-respondent may be convicted and sentenced for the offence alleged against him suitably. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has opposed the revision petition as well as appeal and submitted that the trial court after appreciating entire material and evidence available on record has rightly passed judgment impugned herein, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. This Court has considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and has gone through impugned judgment and has minutely sifted through the evidence available on record. 11. In the instant case, as per prosecution case, victim was subjected to sexual assault/rape by the accused-respondent. It is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual assault/rape is vital and unless there are compelling reasons [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (5 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault/rape alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. 12. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash reported in (2002) 5 SCC 745, while reversing the decision of the High Court and upholding the conviction of the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “13. The conviction for offence under Section 376 IPC can be based on the sole testimony of a rape victim is a well settled proposition. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, referring to State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain, this Court held that it must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. It has also been observed in the said decision by Dr. Justice A.S. Anand (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the court, that the inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury.” 13. Applying said ratio of law in the instant case, in the case in hand, there is no independent eye-witness of the incident of rape, therefore, this Court needs to first examine testimony of star [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (6 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] prosecution witness i.e. prosecutrix, whether testimony of the victim, a girl of 18 years of age, inspire confidence or not. P.W. 1 – prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has stated that both accused-respondent Ajit Singh and Sonu alias Sunil after pressing her mouth, forcibly took her to Hanuman's shop and committed rape upon her. But as per prosecution story as well as statement of the prosecutrix (P.W. 10), she with her sister was sleeping on a cot and her mother and father were sleeping on separate cots in the courtyard of their house. It is not understood when prosecutrix was sleeping in the courtyard of her house, where her sister, mother and father were also sleeping near her, then as to how she could have forcibly taken away in the presence of her family members and no one could have heard her screams. Further, a perusal of the parcha bayan (Ex.P/11) and the police statement of prosecutrix (Ex.D/4) reveals that accused- respondent has not been named therein. It was first time in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which was recorded after six days of the incident, where she has developed the prosecution story and named accused-respondent as one of the assailant. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that prosecutrix in her parcha bayan and the police statement deposed that she did not know person who came with Sonu. Still, no identification parade of the accused-respondent was conducted by the police during investigation. Further, P.W. 10 - prosecutrix in her cross-examination has admitted that Hanuman's shop closes at night; these people took her inside Hanuman's shop, at that [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (7 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] time, shop was opened. It is pertinent to mention here that Hanuman, in whose shop incident was stated to have happened, has not been examined by the prosecution. She has admitted that parcha bayan (Ex.P/11) was not read over to her by the police and she signed on it on the asking of them. She has also stated that she did not know that accused Ajit Singh was permanent residing in Alwar but he did not reside in the village. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 18 - Ramniwas, the Investigation Officer, has also admitted in his cross-examination that during his investigation, this fact came to light that accused Ajit was residing in Alwar and was not residing in the village. He has also admitted that during his investigation, no person verified that accused was residing in the village on the date of incident. P.W. 18 - Sarita Singh, the Investigation Officer, has admitted in her cross-examination that in the statement of Jaisingh, Ajit was written by putting an arrow. She has also admitted that in the statement of Krishan Singh also, Ajit Singh's name was added by putting an arrow. She has also admitted that in the statement of Hanuman Singh, which was Ex.P/4 also, part 'C' to 'D' has been added with the ink and handwriting of another pen. She has also admitted that in the interrogation, it was stated that on the date of incident, accused Ajit was at Basai Khudana but it was not completely verified that he was not at the scene of incident and was present in Basai Khudana. 14. Also, in the present case, the statement of the victim has not been corroborated from the medical and scientific evidence on [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (8 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] record. P.W. 14 - Dr. Phool Singh Choudhary, who medically examined the prosecutrix, has stated in his cross-examination that in his examination report, no positive symptom was seen, which confirmed commission of rape. P.W. 19 - Dr. Kalpana Mathur in her examination in chief has stated that there were no injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix and her hymen was old torn. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that there was no injury marks either at the place of pubic hair or chest; she did not find any injury marks on the private parts of the prosecutrix during her examination. She has also admitted that there was no semen or blood etc. found on the clothes, which prosecutrix was wearing during the examination. 15. It is noteworthy that in the present case, as per FSL Report (Ex.P/23), no semen was detected in the vaginal swab, vaginal smear, salwar and kurta of the prosecutrix. So far as semen detected on the underwear of the prosecutrix is concerned, in absence of any DNA Report, it cannot be said that same was of the accused-respondent and none else. 16. So far as remaining prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. 1 - father of prosecutrix, P.W. 2 - mother of victim, P.W. 4 - Krishan Singh (neighbour of prosecutrix) and P.W. 9 - sister of prosecutrix are concerned, it reveals that they did not see incident in the present case. P.W. 3 - Hanuman Singh, P.W. 11 - Kanwar Pal Singh, P.W. 12 - Sikander Singh and P.W. 13 - Man Singh have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are either police officials or doctor. Thus, [2025:RJ-JP:33308] (9 of 9) [CRLR-189/2007] from the evidence available on record, neither the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence nor the prosecution has been able to establish its story that prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault/rape by the accused-respondent, beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial court has not erred in passing the judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 acquitting accused- respondent for the offence alleged in the present case. 18. Accordingly, present criminal revision petition as well as appeal both are dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the trial court is upheld. 19. A copy of this judgment along with original record of the trial court be remitted forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J INDER/5-6