CHIDDA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chidda Ram son of Shri Bitbal had been convicted under Section 366/376 Indian Penal Code . and was sentenced to undergo rigrous imprisonment for two years on each count. It was further ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. Against this order of conviction and sentence, Chidda Ram has come up in appeal inter alia on the grounds that the prosecution failed to produce the report of the analyist with regard to the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. In the absence of the medical report of the prosecutrix, the petitioner could not have been convicted. Trial court has also ignored the report of the prosecutrix lodged with the police post Shadipura which circumstance establishes that subsequent story given by the prosecutrix is after thought and built up. The learned Sessions Judge has also ignored the testimony of Prem Prakash, Police Officer of police post, Shadipura. Further he has also ignored the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix. In fact the trial court has completely given a go bye to the evidence adduced and has sentenced the accused on surmises and conjuctures.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, in nutshell the case of the prosecution as set up is that Indra Wati, the prosecutrix who bad been residing with her parents at Yusuf Sarai was entised by the Chidda Ram, the present petitioner. Chidda Ram is the brother-in-law of her sister. He was having evil eye on the prosecutrix. He ultimately succeeded in eloping her by offering to provide her good clothes and food. She was minor in the age group of 14 and 16 years and she came under his elorements. On 28th May, 1975, on the asking of the petitioner/accused, Indra Wati went to the prosecution and from there he took her to his house known as DCM quarter. He kept her for the night in the said quarter and committed rape on her. Next day, he took her to another quarter which belonged to his brother-in-law. On 29th May, 1975, he along with two associates brought the prosecutrix to the police post Shadi Pura and pressurised her to make a statement that she left her home of her own accord. This statement according to the prosecution the prosecutrix made at the asking of the petitioner. Since the prosecutrix was missing, her mother Surjeet Kaur lodged the report with the police. On 29th May, 1975, the mother of the prosecutrix went to the quarter of the petitioner but could not trace the prosecutrix and the petitioner showed his ignorance. However, the police official handed over the prosecutrix to her mother. On being medically examined it was found that her age was between 14 and 16 years. It was in this background that the petitioner was challaned. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Similarly, the petitioner besides giving his own statement examined two witnesses. In our society respect for the dignity of the woman is on the decline, mobilisation and rapes are on the increase, though these offences are committed by sick minds but since it deals with the decency and morality in the public life and touches the honour of womanhood hence the offenders are to be dealt with strictly. It is also a well settled principal of law that prosecutrix is a victim of crime. Her evidence can be accepted without being corroborated in material particulars. She is a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in case of physical violence. But at the same time Courts have to strike balance while evaluating the evidence of the prosecutrix, her testimony has to be evaluated like that of a witness or a complainant with care and caution. If her testimony inspire confidence and is trusworthy then there is no need of any corroboration. But this all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. With this view of the law we have to see whether in this case Indra Wati's testimony regarding petitioner's committing sexual assuit or rape on her inspires confidence.

(3.) According to the prosecutrix she was known to the petitioner from before. He is the brother-in-law of her sister and had been visiting her house. As per her testimony she left for the bus stand to meet the petitioner. From there she went to his quarter known as DCM quarter. In her testimony she stated that when her parents came in search of her she was in the quarter of the petitioner but the petitioner told them that the prosecutrix was not there. This shows that she was aware of her parents coming and if the rape on the previous night i.e. 28th May, 1975 was committed on her she had the opportunity to shout or cry or raise the alarm to attract the attention of her parents but she did not do any such thing. According to her petitioner took her to his brother-in-laws quarter and from there he took her to the police station where she lodged the report that she went with the petitioner of her own accord. The said brother-in-law has not been cited as a witness nor produced by the prosecution. She further admitted that in the police post she went hereself, while the petitioner and his two friends were standing outside. When subjected to cross-examination she admitted that on the morning of 29th May, 1975 at about 8 A.M. the petitioner's house was searched, by the police accompanied by her parents but could not find the prosecutrix there. Though according to her she was very much in the house of the petitioner but was in the other room. Then went on to say that the petitioner was anested in the market on 29th May, at about 10 A.M. on her pointing. If she could point out the petitioner in the market what prevented her from telling the police in the Police Post Shadipura that the petitioner had committed rape on her. These facts are unreconcilable and therefore her testimony does not inspire confidence. She further went to the extent of saying that she was not produced before the Magistrate on the day she was recovered but when pointed out she admitted that she was produced before the Magistrate and made a statement EX. Public Witness .1/ B where she did not mention that she was sent to the police post Shadipura for making the statement at the instance of the petitioner. It is only after making the statement to the magistrate Ex.P.W.1/B that she started implicating the petitioner to the extent that she was forced to go to the police post and lodge the report. If what she now states the same she had ample opportunity to say so before the magistrate at the first instance when she was produced before him. But in her statement EX.P.W.1/B she did not state that she lodged the report with the police post at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, the present story set up by her is an after thought and cannot be relied upon. Moroever, she admits that she had been having this sort of affair with the petitioner for the last five years. She did not tell her parents that she was agreeable to the suggestion of the petitioner and now at the instance of her parents she implicated the petitioner. Having an affair gets proved from the medical report which says that the petitioner was habitual of sexual intercourse. For all those reasons, I find that the testimony of the prosecutrix that the petitioner committed rape cm her is belied from the facts which have come on record.