KULI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the appellant is challenging his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He is thus seeking to set aside the judgment passed on 20th April, 1985 and the order of the same date. sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The incident, occurred at night of 12th May, 1984. The First Information Report was got recorded by the prosecutrix on the next day. The accused was also arrested on that date. The prosecutrix as well as the appellant were medically examined on that very day at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain Hospital. According to medico legal certificate Ex. Public Witness 8/A pertaining to the appellant, the appellant stated to the doctor at the time of his examination that he had a had sexual intercourse with awoman who had offered herself to him. This has been recorded in that document. The underwear which was worn by the appellant at the time of his examination was taken into possession. On analysis semen stains were found on it. Public Witness 8 Dr. Veer Singh who had examined the appellant on 13th May, 1984 at about 8 P.M. corroborated the fact that the appellant had informed him at the time of his examination that he had "done intercourse with a female candidate, who herself offered". The prosecution has established vide report Ex. Public Witness IO/E that the underwear worn by the appellant did contain human semen stains. It is, therefore, established that the appellant did commit intercourse. At any rate this fact had been admitted by him before Dr. Veer Singh.

(2.) The question which arises is whether the appellant had intercourse with the prosecutrix and, if so, whether it was with her consent. The prosecution has been able to establish that prosecutrix Krishna Devi was subjected to intercourse on 12th May, 1984 at about 11 p.m. This is clear from the report of the C.F.S L. in which it is stated that live spermatoza was found in the vagina 'taken at the time of the medical examination. Her petticoat which had been taken into possession was alsofound to contain stains of human semen.

(3.) The facts of the case. have been noticed in detail in the judgment of the learned trial court. It is not necessary to notice those all over again. The prosecutrix statement had categorically state that she had been threatened, on a point of' knife and 'it was because of fear that she did not raise any alarm when the appellant and his companions committed rape on her. The defence sought to create a doubt whether the appellant had two companions or three. Whether the companions were not arrested or could not be apprehended question which has become academic. I have to assess whether the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant had committed .rape have to be sustained. During the course of arguments Mr. Rajiv Chauhan learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix appeared to be a woman of easy virtue and thus corrboration of her statement was necessary in law. He has drawn my attention to the statement made by the appellant before the doctor in support of his plea that the prosecutrix was not a good character woman. As noticed by the trial court no suggestion was put to the prosecutrix that it was she who had offered herself to the appellant either on payment or that she was a "street walker". Infact the suggestion put to her was that she was not raped by the appellant herein. It was not suggested that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her with-her consent.