THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAJARAM @ RAJA

294               SUPREME[2018]
                          COURT 14REPORTS
                                  S.C.R. 294               [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                       v.
                             RAJARAM @ RAJA
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2016)
B                             OCTOBER 24, 2018
                       [N. V. RAMANA AND
                 MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
             Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference –
C     Prosecution case was that the respondent committed rape on the
      victim-deceased due to which she was under depression and
      committed suicide by consuming poison – Conviction of respondent
      under ss.376(1) and 306 IPC – High Court allowed the appeal
      filed by respondent and set aside his conviction – Appeal by State
      challenging acquittal relying on the evidence of 12 year old sister
D     of the deceased and her father – Held: PW-4, sister of the deceased
      who is 12 years of age, categorically stated in her cross-examination
      that she was threatened by the police and due to that, she had made
      a statement in support of the prosecution case – The uncorroborated
      evidence of 12 year old girl is likely to have been tutored or under
E     influence while giving her testimony and, therefore, cannot be relied
      upon – The evidence of PW-3-father of deceased is also not credible
      – PW-3 who lodged Merg intimation on the day of incident had
      stated therein that he had scolded her daughter i.e. the deceased
      and resultantly she took poisonous substance – There was no
      mention in the Merg Intimation that the deceased told her father
F     about the commission of rape by respondent and that as a result
      deceased committed suicide due to depression or self-torment – No
      case made out for interference with the order of High Court – Penal
      Code, 1860 – ss.376(1) and 306.
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
            HELD: 1. PW-4, sister of the deceased who is stated to be
      12 years of age, categorically stated in her cross-examination
      that on the next day of incident, when the police came, she did
      not tell anything about the incident to the police. Subsequently,
      after a week, police came again and at the instance of police, she
H
                                      294
 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAJARAM @ RAJA                         295


made a statement. She also admitted that she was threatened by         A
the police and due to that, she has made a statement in support
of the prosecution case. [Para 10][297-E]
      2. Another evidence relied upon by the appellant was that
PW-3, father of the deceased who lodged Merg intimation on the
same day of incident in which inter alia he stated that he scolded     B
her daughter i.e. the deceased and resultantly she took poisonous
substance. There is no mention in the Merg Intimation that the
deceased told PW-3 about commission of rape by respondent and
as a result deceased committed suicide due to depression or self-
torment, after being raped by respondent. In view of this the
evidence of PW-3 is not reliable at all. In the instant case, except   C
the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, there was no other material or
medical evidence to support or substantiate the case of
prosecution. In a case of acquittal by the High Court, the State
has to make out a strong case to interfere with the impugned
order. Until and unless, there is some perversity or non-              D
consideration of the material facts, it is not proper to interfere
with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
[Paras 11, 12][297-G-H; 298-A-B]
      Bhagwan Singh and Others v. State of M.P. (2003)
      3 SCC 21 : [2003] 1 SCR 506 ; State of Kerala & Anr.             E
      v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 : [2011] 6 SCR 864 ;
      State of U.P. v. Punni & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 153 : [2008]
      1 SCR 85 ; State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh (1995) 2
      SCC 486 : [1995] 1 SCR 496 – relied on.
                      Case Law Reference                               F
[2003] 1 SCR 506               relied on               Para 10
[2011] 6 SCR 864               relied on               Para 12
[2008] 1 SCR 85                relied on               Para 13
[1995] 1 SCR 496               relied on               Para 14         G
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 637 of 2016.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2009 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2005.
                                                                       H
296                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A           Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. N. Dubey, Mukesh, Advs. for
      the Appellant.
            Ms. Nidhi, Adv. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B           N. V. RAMANA, J.
            1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the Appellant-State of
      Madhya Pradesh by special leave against the impugned order dated
      12.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
      Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2005, wherein, High Court allowed
C     the appeal preferred by respondent herein and set aside the order of
      conviction & sentence passed by the trial court on 05.04.2005 under
      Sections 376(1) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
             2. The factual matrix as advanced by the prosecution, necessary
      for disposal of this case is that on 13.04.2004, at around 6.00 P.M.,
D     Rinky @ Inky (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) started vomiting.
      The deceased was taken to Dr. Tripathi’s dispensary, but he was not
      available therein. Therefore, deceased was taken to the quarter of Dr.
      Tripathi. After being examined by Dr. Tripathi, deceased was declared
      dead.
            3. On the basis of Merg intimation/information of death of the
E
      deceased (Ex. P/3) by Dinesh Prasad Kushwaha (PW-3), father of the
      deceased, Merg No. 25/04 was registered by J.B. Singh Chandel (PW-
      9). The post mortem of deceased was conducted by Dr. S.D. Kanwar
      (PW-6).
             4. Thereafter, on Merg Inquiry, it was found that respondent herein
F
      committed rape on the deceased, who under depression, committed
      suicide by consuming poisonous substance. On this basis, K.N. Banjare
      (PW-7) registered Crime No. 181/04 for the offence punishable under
      Sections 376 and 305 of IPC at Police Station, Jaisingh Nagar and the
      case was investigated. Respondent was apprehended in the crime and
G     he was arrested accordingly. Thereafter, medical examinations were
      conducted by Dr. Piyush Nigam (PW-1) and other investigations by K.N.
      Banjare (PW-7) took place. On completion of investigation, charge sheet
      was filed against the respondent and the case was committed to Sessions
      Court for trial.
H
  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. RAJARAM @ RAJA                              297
                 [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

      5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No. 173        A
of 2004, vide order dated 05.04.2005, convicted the respondent under
Sections 376(1) and 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 10 year
Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default,
three months Simple Imprisonment in both the counts. Further, each of
the sentence(s) was ordered to run concurrently.
                                                                             B
      6. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence,
respondent approached the High Court in appeal and the High Court
vide impugned order dated 12.01.2009, allowed the appeal and set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed on respondent by the Trial Court.
      7. Heard Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the             C
appellant and Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel for the respondent.
      8. Learned counsel for appellant i.e. State of Madhya Pradesh
mainly relied upon the evidence of Anju Kumari (PW-4), sister of the
deceased and Dinesh Prasad Kushwaha (PW-3), father of the deceased.
      9. We have thoroughly examined the evidence of abovementioned          D
witnesses and also the evidence of Dr. Piyush Nigam (PW-1) and Dr.
S.D. Kanwar (PW-6).
       10. Anju Kumari (PW-4), who is stated to be 12 years of age,
categorically stated in Para 12 of her cross-examination that on the next
day of incident, when the police came, she did not tell anything about the   E
incident to the police. Subsequently, after a week, police came again and
at the instance of police, she made a statement. She also admitted that
she was threatened by the police and due to that, she has made a
statement in support of the prosecution case. It has been held in
Bhagwan Singh and Others vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 21, that             F
‘if the case is based on evidence of child witness, court should seek
corroboration from other evidence’. Further, it was also held that ‘if
possibility of tutoring the child witness appears to the court, it should
be careful in accepting the evidence’. Therefore, it is difficult for this
court to rely on uncorroborated testimony/evidence of a 12 year old girl,
who is very likely to have been tutored or under influence while giving      G
her testimony.
       11. Another evidence relied upon by the appellant is that of Dinesh
Prasad Kushwaha (PW-3), who lodged Merg intimation (Ex. P/3) on
the same day of incident i.e. 13.04.2004 at about 4.00 P.M., in which
inter alia he stated that he scolded her daughter i.e. the deceased and      H
298                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A     resultantly she took poisonous substance. It is also worthwhile to note
      here that there is no mention in the Merg Intimation that the deceased
      told PW-3 about commission of rape by respondent and as a result
      deceased committed suicide due to depression or self-torment, after being
      raped by respondent. In view of the above, we are of the considered
      opinion that the evidence of PW-3 is not reliable at all.
B
             12. In the instant case, except the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4,
      there is no other material or medical evidence to support or substantiate
      the case of prosecution. In a case of acquittal by the High Court, the
      State has to make out a strong case to interfere with the impugned
      order. Until and unless, there is some perversity or non-consideration of
C     the material facts, it is not proper to interfere with the order of acquittal
      passed by the High Court. Similar view was taken by this Court in the
      case of State of Kerala & Anr. vs. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450.
            13. Similarly, in the case of ‘State of U.P. vs. Punni & Ors.’
      (2008) 11 SCC 153, it was held that-
D
             “11. In any view of the matter, we are of the view that this Court,
             while dealing with the order of acquittal of the High Court,
             would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the High
             Court unless it is satisfied that such finding is vitiated by
             some glaring infirmity in the appraisement of evidence or
E            such finding was perverse or arbitrary.”
                                                           (emphasis supplied)
            14. In State of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh (1995) 2 SCC 486, this
      Court, on the same lines, held that “if the order of acquittal was not
F     perverse or palpably erroneous, this Court would not interfere with
      such finding of the High Court acquitting the accused/respondents
      from the offences charged against them”.
            15. In the light of above-stated findings, reasons and discussions,
      we find no merits in this appeal to interfere with the impugned order
      passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed
G
      being devoid of merits.

      Devika Gujral                                                 Appeal dismissed.



H