SAKLAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The day, had not even dawned on 24th April, 1990 when one Suman aged about 14 years became the hapless victim of the sexual assault of the appellant at about 04.00 a.m. in the morning when she had gone to the bathroom on the first floor of the house for urinating. On hearing the shrieks of Suman, her father and brother came at the first floor from the ground floor, where they were residing, and found the appellant lying on Suman and committing rape. Suman was rescued from under the appellant and an information was sent to the police. Police reached the spot and arrested the appellant. Underwear of the appellant which he was wearing was seized by the police so also the kurta and salwar of the prosecutrix Suman. The said clothes were sent for examination to the laboratory and the semen found on the underwear of the appellant as well as on the salwar and kurta of the prosecutrix were found to be of the same group. The Sessions Court after trial convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) The contention of the appellant is that he had not committed any rape and in the alternative if it was held that rape was committed, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. To elaborate his contention it was argued by Mr.Tuffail that rape is alleged to has been committed on the roof where the appellant was sleeping and just across the boundary of the roof there were other neighbours and it did not stand to reason to him that no one came at the spot after hearing the shrieks of the prosecutrix. According to him, the father, mother and brother of the prosecutrix have wrongly alleged of the appellant having committed the rape on account of his being the tenant in their house and they wanted to have the same vacated and it was allegedly for this reason that the appellant was implicated in a false case. According to Mr.Tuffail, without any corroboration, the statement of the prosecutrix or her parents should not be believed as they were all allegedly interested witnesses.

(3.) In my view, the argument of Mr.Tuffail has only to be noted and rejected. The prosecutrix, according to the school leaving certificate produced by her, was of 14 years of age whereas according to the appellant as per the medical examination her age was between 18-20 years. At this stage, without going into the question as to whether the age of the prosecutrix was 14 years or 18 years, I am unable to agree with Mr.Tuffail that a false case has been planted with a view to get the house vacated from the appellant. Though, the statement of the prosecutrix has been fully corroborated by her parents, and in fact the father and brother of the prosecutrix had even seen the appellant committing rape and had found him over the prosecutrix at the time when they reached the roof of the premises, however, even assuming that there was no corroboration, in my view, even the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix can be believed. In a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been held that no woman of honour will accuse another of rape since she sacrifices thereby what is dearest to her and the Court cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. When a woman is ravished what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. In the indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society and when in the face of these dangers the crime is brought to light there is built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. It seems highly improbable that just to evict the appellant from the house, the prosecutrix and her parents would put at stake the honour of the prosecutrix. Moreover the story of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the CFSL report as the semen on the underwear of the accused and on the salwar and kurta of the prosecutrix have been found to be of the same group. I am, therefore, unable to agree with Mr.Tuffail that no rape was committed.