STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JANGBAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 28, 1988 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 452-SB/85. The respondent Jang Bahadur was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, ambala City in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1945 for the offence under Sections 363, 366,506 and 376 Indian Penal Code The prosecution case is that Kumari Geeta who was then a student of VIth class of a local higher School of ambala city was raped by the respondent jang Bahadur against her wishes by holding out threats. According to the prosecutrix, jang Bahadur was known to her because jang Bahadur stayed as a tenant in the house of prosecutrix for some time. Jang Bahadur misrepresented to the prosecutrix that he was proceeding towards the School where his brother was reading and she should be taken to the said School in his cycle so that she could reach early. But instead of going towards the school, Jang Bahadur had taken her beyond the bundh and after spreading a chaddar in the pits he forcibly broke the string of the Salwar of the prosecutrix and made her lie on the chaddar. Thereafter, holding out threats to her he committed rape on the prosecutrix. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix was found weeping, Mahinder who was the neighbour of the prosecutrix and another person sant Ram had arrived at the place of the incident and seeing the said persons coming, jang Bahadur left the place. The prosecutrix immediately narrated about the said offence of committing rape on her. She was then taken to the police station where on the basis of her report, the F. I. R. was registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined and from the report of the lady doctor who had examined her, it transpires that her hyman was found torn. The doctor, however, could not give any definite opinion whether rape had been committed on her. The accused jang Bahadur was arrested on February 28, 1985 and he was also medically examined. It was found on such medical examination that the accused was capable of sexual intercourse. The salwar of the prosecutrix and the khes (chaddar) stated to have been spread by the accused at the time of committing rape and the underwear of the accused were seized by the police and were sent to Forensic science Laboratory for testing. The report reveals that in all the said articles i. e. in the salwar, in the khes (chaddar) and in the underwear of the accused, semen of B group was found. Vaginal swab was also taken for chemical analysis. It also transpires from such analysis that semen was found in the swab. Dr. V. K. Bansal (PW. 2) was the medical officer in the hospital of Ambala city. He examined Jang Bahadur the accused and he noted one abrasion and one lacerated wound on the upper part of the left leg and over the front of the middle of the body respectively and according to the doctor such injuries were simple in nature and had been caused within the 24 hours of examination. It may be stated that such period of injury fits in with the time when the rape is alleged to have been committed on the prosecutrix.

(2.) From the certificate issued by the school, it transpires that the prosecutrix was aged 13 years at the time of incident. Radiological test also performed to determine the age of the prosecutrix. The doctor has given opinion that the age of the prosecutrix was between 9 to 13 years.

(3.) The trial Court accepted the prosecution case and convicted the respondent Jang bahadur, for the offence under Sections 366 506 and 376, Indian Penal Code For the offence under section 366, Indian Penal Code, the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of rs. 500. 00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. For the offence under section 506, Indian Penal Code the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and for the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned Judge directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.