RAM MURTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 1966. The appellant, Ram Murti, along with Suresh Kumar, Pratap Singh and Prem Kumar Mittal, was tried in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on charges under Sections 366, 366-A 376, Indian Penal Code. Pratap Singh, Suresh and Prem Kumar Mittal were given benefit of doubt and acquitted. According to the Trial Court, the prosecutrix Satnam Kaur, a student of 9th class, Dev Samaj Girls' High School, Ambala City, had improved upon her earliest version in respect of these accused and the possibility of falsely implicating them by herself or at the instance of Shri Hari Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector, could not be reasonably ruled out. The appellant was, however, held to be the chief and real culprit and was accordingly convicted under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment on each count. The sentences were ordered to be concurrent. It was observed that the appellant did not deserve any leniency because being a medical practitioner and a teacher he had taken undue advantage of his position in both capacitates. On appeal the High Court acquitted him of the charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code but maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code. On appeal by special leave in this Court the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence. The appellant is not represented by counsel. He is on bail and is not present in Court; but he has submitted written arguments and has requested that they may be considered in his absence.

(2.) The prosecution story, as given by the prosecutrix, may now be broadly stated. Satnam Kaur, the prosecutrix, daughter of Hans Raj, a refugee from West Pakistan, was a student of 9th class, Dev Samaj High School, Ambala City at the relevant time. One Sumitra Devi was also studying with her in the same class. Ram Murthi, appellant, a medical practitioner also used to teach in this school. He used to take three periods a week of the 9th class. The annual examination in the school concluded on March 23, 1965 and on the following day there was some function in the school. After the function, on March 24, 1965, Sumitra Devi took Satnam Kaur to the appellant's house so that he may disclose to them the marks secured by them in the examination. This was pursuant to the appellant's message conveyed through Sumitra Devi. Both these girls reached the appellant's house at about 6 or 7 p.m. A car was parked in front of that house. The driver was sitting in the car and Pratap Singh was standing near it. The appellant took both the girls inside the house and entertained them to tea. He also disclosed to them the marks secured by them in the examination. As the tea tested somewhat bitter and Satnam Kaur felt slight headache, she requested the appellant to take her to her house. The appellant promised to do so. As Sumitra Devi went upstairs to talk to the appellant's wife Satnam Kaur was taken by the appellant to the car. Partap Singh and Suresh Kumar also got into it. Instead of taking her to her own house she was taken to Suresh's house where all of them had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. Outside that house the driver of the car threatened her that she would be killed if she refused to go in or raised alaram. At midnight they took her to Ambala Cantonment in the same car and in the shop of a tailor behind Nigar Cinema, the key of which was with Suresh, they again raped her under threat of life. In the morning at about 4 or 5 a.m. they took her to the house of Prem Mittal in Prem Nagar. Prem Mittal was in the house. After leaving Satnam Kaur there the appellant and the driver of the car locked the front door of the house and went away. In the evening Ram Murti returned, entering the house by the back door. At night Prem Mittal had sexual intercourse with her against her will and in spite of her resistance. On the following day Pratap and Suresh again reped her in that house. She was also given some bitter liquid to drink twice against her will. On the night of 27th March, Pratap and Suresh took her to Chandigarh in a bus and kept her in the waiting room at the railway station. She was threatened with life if she raised alarm. In the morning she was brought back to Prem Mittal's house in Ambala where Pratap, Suresh and Prem Mittal had again sexual intercourse with her. She was kept in that house till March 29, 1965. She was again taken to Chandigarh by Pratap and Suresh. During these two days Pratap, Suresh and Prem Kumar used to commit rape on her. On the evening of March 29, 1965 Suresh and Pratap took her to Chandigarh and kept her in the waiting room at the Chandigarh railway station. The following morning when they were going from the railway station towards the town near the crossing of the roads she saw some police officers and raised alarm. Suresh and Pratap left her there and she narrated her story to the police officers. They took her to the police station at Chandigarh and recorded her statement. The police brought her back to Ambala City where Hari Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector threatened her not to involve Sumitra and Ram Murti in this affair otherwise he would get all the members of her family arrested. She was taken before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambala where she made her statement which, according to her, was in accordance with the directions of A. S. I Hari Ram. After reaching her parent's house she was taken by her father to the police station Ambala Cantonment and her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City.

(3.) As the appellant was unrepresented by counsel in this Court we requested the counsel for the State to take us through the evidence. The first point which requires consideration is that of the age of the prosecutrix. In the Trial Court the prosecutrix gave her age as 17 years. In her statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate made on March 31, 1965 she gave her age as 15 years. In her statement under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code made before Shri Hiralal Mehra on May 21, 1965 she stated her age to be 15 1/2 yeas. In our opinion, it is not at all safe to rely on her own statement about her age.