w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Praveen Kumar v/s The State of Rajasthan through P.P.


Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN INDIA LTD . [Active] CIN = L21029WB1983PLC036326

Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1999PTC098397

    Criminal Appeal No. 1881 of 2007

    Decided On, 10 January 2017

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

    For the Appellant: Mohit Balwada, Advocate. For the Respondent: R.R. Baisla, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1, Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 401/2007 registered at Police Station, Behror, District Alwar qua commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC).

2. Prosecution story in brief is that the appellant had raped the prosecutrix. Appellant was working as a conductor on the school bus and had raped the prosecutrix aged about five years, who was a student of class one.

3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellant. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined eighteen witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.

4. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 07.12.2007 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the initial version, it was the case of the complainant that the appellant had attempted to commit rape but at a later stage, in an improved version, it had been alleged that the appellant had committed the offence of rape. As per the prosecution story, two students were also present in the bus at the time of alleged occurrence but they were not examined during trial. Driver of the bus had not supported the prosecution story during trial. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not support the prosecution story. Medical examination of the prosecutrix did not corroborate her version with regard to commission of offence of rape. Statement of the prosecutrix was rendered doubtful as she had gone to school after the alleged occurrence and had reported the matter to her parents in the evening. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of this Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 31] wherein, it was held as under:-

"Though the incident had occurred on 19.2.1987, the F.I.R. was lodged on 20.2.1987. The informant, PW-1 mentioned in his evidence that for want of adequate means of communication, he could not lodge the information earlier. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence had taken place in a village, and that, it is not unlikely that the explanation furnished is ture, I am not inclined to dismiss the prosecution case on the ground of delay. Vis-a-vis the rape, it is however, difficult to concludce without any manner of doubt that the incident had occurred in the manner, as projected by the prosecution. The testimony of PW-1, Ramprasad, PW-5, Choti and PW-8, the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. Not only it is highly improbable that the appellant could have committed the offending act being fully aware that the parents of the victim were barely a feet away from the place of occurrence, in fact there is no direct evidence of commission of rape. The evidence of the prosecutrix even if accepted on the face value, does not prove the commission of an act to be construed as rape in law. Though the presence of human semen in her wearing apparels as well as in the dhoti of the appellant is in incriminating piece of evidence, the fact that on medical examination, her hymen was found to be intact, detracts from the proposition that he (appellant) had committed rape on her. Moreover, her vaginal swab did not indicate presence of human semen. The prosecutrix was frank enough to disclose to the Court that her statement was given, as desired by her father whom she had accompanied. The medical evidence is also to the effect that the injuries found on her body are possible on a fall."

6. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh Cr.L.R. (SC) 670 wherein, it was held as under:-

"It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary. Even if there is consent, the act will still be a 'rape', if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, writs, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault. The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case. "

7. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecutrix was aged about five years and she has deposed as per the prosecution story. Statement of the prosecutrix was duly corroborated by medical evidence.

8. Prosecutrix had appeared in the witness box as PW-3. At the time of occurrence, prosecutrix was aged about five years. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 10.08.2007 she had boarded the school bus and had sat on the front seat. She has further deposed that she had been raped by the appellant and had been threatened that in case she narrated the occurrence to her parents, she would be killed. She did not narrate the occurrence to anybody in the school. However, when she returned home, she narrated the occurrence to her mother. She was having pain in her private part.

9. Prosecutrix was got medically examined on 10.08.2007 at 5.30 p.m. PW-13 Dr. Neelam Kumari proved the Medico Legal Examination Report of the prosecutrix Exhibit P-3. As per the medical opinion possibility of sexual intercourse could not be denied. It was also found on medical examination of the prosecutrix that hymen was red, swollen and inflamed. Discharge was also found present.

10. PW-1 Vinod Kumar Saini (uncle of the prosecutrix), PW-2 Suman Devi (Mother of the prosecutrix), PW-4 Mahendra Kumar (Father of the Prosecutrix), PW-7 Manoj Kumar Saini (Uncle of the prosecutrix) & PW-8 Balveer Singh (Uncle of the prosecutrix) have deposed that the prosecutrix had narrated to them that she had been raped by the appellant. Thereafter, they got the prosecutrix medically examined and reported the matter to the police.

11. PW-18 Yogesh Kumar deposed with regard to investigation conducted by him.

12. Although, in the present case PW-5 Jagdish Prasad driver of the bus has not supported the prosecution case but the said fact does not render the statement of the prosecutrix doubtful. Statement of the prosecutrix being natural inspires confidence. Prosecutrix or her parents had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Statement of the prosecutrix is duly corroborated by medical evidence. The fact that the other students who were also present in the bus at the time of alleged occurrence have not been examined during trial also does not render the prosecution story doubtful as the prosecution case is duly established from the statement of the prosecutrix, which is duly corroborated by medical evidence.

13. As per the FIR, it was the case of the complainant that every effort had been made to stop the wrong act with his daughter. After registration of the FIR, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 14.08.2007, wherein she has categorically deposed that the appellant had raped her. Since, the prosecutrix was of a tender age, it was probable that she might not have been able to explain the incident correctly to the complainant. Prosecutrix must have been in a great trauma after the occurrence. She must have got extremely scared on account of threat g

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

iven to her by the appellant. It was natural for her to have narrated the occurrence to her family members on account of comfort zone and safety. Every yong child feels that he/she will be protected by his/her family members. When the prosecutrix was at her home she must have felt comfortable, protected, cared and a little fearless from the threat given to her by the appellant. Since, in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix qua commission of offence of rape by the appellant is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, there is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on different facts. 14. In the present case, the learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 A. Praveen Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-06-2020 State of Telangana Versus Polepaka Praveen @ Pawan Supreme Court of India
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Khariwal Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Chaudhary & Others Versus Election Commission of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Praveen, Proprietor Versus Sumesh, KaleeckalVeedu, KrishnapuramMuri, Krishnapuram & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-01-2020 Praveen & Another Versus Baby Ulhahnan & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-01-2020 Pankaj Kumar Versus Praveen Jain High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-01-2020 P.V. Philip Versus Praveen & Another High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Praveen Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
17-10-2019 Praveen Kumar Prakash & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
11-10-2019 R. Jaikrishnan @ Jaikrishnan Nair Versus G. Praveen Kumar High Court of Kerala
10-07-2019 Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Another Versus Praveen Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-06-2019 Y.A. Praveen & Another Versus Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Neervaram, Wayanad High Court of Kerala
21-05-2019 Joginder Singh Chauhan & Another Versus Praveen Dulta Chauhan & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
01-05-2019 Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya Versus Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
16-04-2019 Praveen Gupta Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-04-2019 Praveen Kapila Versus Navin Soi & Another High Court of Delhi
01-04-2019 Praveen Kumar Kommineni Versus The State High Court of Delhi
22-02-2019 Praveen Versus The Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2019 B. Praveen Kumar Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Tuticorin & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-01-2019 Maithili Manhar Siswawala Versus Praveen Kenneth Samuel James High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-01-2019 Praveen Kumar Arora Versus Akshay High Court of Delhi
08-01-2019 Praveen Kakar & Others Versus Ministry of Environment & Forests & Others National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-12-2018 The Director of Insurance Medical Services, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Dr. V. Praveen High Court of Kerala
22-11-2018 Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Jagdish Prasad Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-11-2018 Ch. Praveen Kumar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-11-2018 Kushal Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Ito Non Corporate Ward 5(1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
06-11-2018 Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd. Versus Praveen Chandra Trivedi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-10-2018 Praveen Poddar Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2018 Khandya Praveen @ Praveen Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-09-2018 Meghna Gopal Versus Praveen Chandran High Court of Kerala
21-08-2018 Praveen Arjun Patel Versus J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
13-08-2018 Manjunath Dasappa & Others Versus Trans Global Power Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory T.K. Praveen High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 Praveen Agarwal, Agra Versus Dcit Central Circle, Agra Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra
07-08-2018 Praveen Singh @ Bhaya Singh Versus State High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
02-08-2018 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27-07-2018 P. Rithika, Minor, rep. by her father and guardian P. Praveen Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, School Education Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Praveen John Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
04-07-2018 Asma Praveen Versus Badru Nisa & Others High Court of Delhi
25-05-2018 Dr. A.P.S. Guru Praveen Versus Directorate of Medical Education Government of Tamilnadu Kilpauk, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-05-2018 Praveen Engineering Works V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Hyderabad
24-04-2018 Praveen George Joseph & Another Versus Ramesh Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-03-2018 Praveen Versus Hanuman In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2018 Praveen Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-03-2018 Praveen Versus Deepa High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
19-02-2018 L.M.D. Athiya Praveen Versus N.B. Riyas Ahmed & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-02-2018 Praveen Maben Versus Nalini Maben High Court of Madhya Pradesh
18-01-2018 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Delhi
11-01-2018 K. Praveen Versus B.S. Nagaraj High Court of Karnataka
03-01-2018 C. Praveen Versus V. Prakash & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-01-2018 Sajeeda Praveen Shaik Versus The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
29-12-2017 Praveen s/o Krishnan Versus Public Prosecutor Supreme Court of Singapore
05-12-2017 Praveen Kumar & Another Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-11-2017 Kumar @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus State by Inspector of Police (Law & Order) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2017 Roopesh @ Praveen Versus Union of India, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, National Investigation Agency, [NIA] High Court of Kerala
24-11-2017 Dr. S. Praveen Kumar Versus The Senior Manager, Credit Card Division, ICICI Bank, Hyderabad Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
21-11-2017 Praveen @ Parveen Kumar Jain & Another Versus Earth Infrastructures Ltd., (Through its MD) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-11-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus N. Surendra Kalyan Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-11-2017 Praveen Kumar Maakar Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
17-10-2017 Praveen Singh @ Pappu Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus M. Andalamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-10-2017 Nipun Praveen Singhvi Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
03-10-2017 Praveen R. Prasad & Another Versus The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-09-2017 Praveen Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-09-2017 A. Praveen @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The State through The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-09-2017 Rupesh Sharma Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Himachal Pradesh
31-08-2017 Praveen Kumar Pandey @ Babua Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2017 B. Asaithambi & Another Versus Praveen Chordia & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2017 Munja Praveen & Others Versus State of Telangana & Others Supreme Court of India
16-08-2017 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2017 R. Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The Inspector of Police, Trichy District & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2017 Praveen @ Bablu Versus State High Court of Delhi
16-06-2017 Vanjari Praveen Kumar Versus Vanjari Lakshmi Bhavani In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
05-05-2017 Praveen Kumar Jain, Worked At Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Versus The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-04-2017 Sri Sai Venkateswara Builders, Rep. by Managing Partner Versus T. Praveen & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-04-2017 Praveen Kumar & Others Versus Sharath Chida & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-04-2017 Praveen Kumar Singh & Another Versus Medinimata Agro Products (P) Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata
31-03-2017 Praveen Etta Versus Savithri Etta High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-03-2017 Praveen Versus Sabitha & Another High Court of Kerala
03-03-2017 S.G. Praveen Gowda Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-02-2017 H.D. Praveen Kumar & Others Versus Vice Chancellor, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-02-2017 Smt. Kala Devi Versus Praveen Surana & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
08-02-2017 Gunjan Versus Praveen Surendra Pal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2017 Rfn Praveen Kumar Versus Union of India & Others Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
31-01-2017 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Praveen High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-01-2017 PR. Commissioner of Income tax-XVIII Versus Praveen Saxena High Court of Delhi
15-12-2016 Korra Praveen Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
22-11-2016 Reena Kumari & Others Versus Praveen Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India