Not accepting the prosecution version that the accused also suffered injuries while raping the victim who was older than him,the Supreme Court has acquitted a man who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for raping a housewife. The apex court further took into consideration the fact that the victims own son and a relative had turned hostile and her husband too did not testify during the trial. We find that this case is rather an unusual one. The fact that the appellant was in the house of the prosecutrix is admitted by both the sides. The prosecution story that the appellant (Dinesh Jaiswal),a young man of 31 years,had been overpowered by a much older woman is rather difficult to believe. In any case,as the investigating officer had not verified the statement of the appellant,some corroboration for the prosecutrixs story was required. As already mentioned,her son Babulal and Shivbalak,a relative,who had reached the place of incident,were both declared hostile and did not support her, a Bench of Justices H S Bedi and J M Panchal said in the acquittal order. The prosecution said both Jaiswal and the 42-year-old victim had suffered injuries during the scuffle. It was claimed that while Jaiswal attacked her thrice while committing the rape,the victim retaliated thereafter by inflicting six injuries on him. A sessions court in Madhya Pradesh had convicted Jaiswal for raping the housewife on July 8,1987,and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the sentence,following which he appealed in the apex court. The apex court was,however,not convinced with the prosecutions argument and pointed out the various infirmities. The apex court also took into consideration the report of Dr Kalpana Ravi,a prosecution witness who found three injuries on the victim and said as she was a married woman of 42 years it was not been possible to give a categorical opinion about any recent sexual encounter. Jaiswal was also examined by Dr S B Khare,another prosecution witness,who in his report revealed six injuries,several of them on the head. The claim of the defence was that he was falsely implicated as he had gone to the womans house to recover his lost cow,over which a quarrel ensued. We find that even her husband Sampat,who had accompanied her to the police station to lodge the report,did not come into the witness box and the doctor was also unable to confirm the factum of rape evidence of the prosecutrix, the Bench held.
