BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Balbir Singh has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 366 and 376 of the IndianPenal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 and in defaultof payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for oneyear on the first count and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine toundergo simple imprisonment for one year on the second countvide judgment and order dated 7/08/1992, by an AdditionalSessions Judge, Delhi. He has come in appeal challenging hisconviction and sentences.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Public Witness 4 Mehar Singh withhis wife Public Witness 5 Sarupi were at the relevant time living in RailwayColony, Vasant Road, Public Witness 3 young girl then aged about 3 years,who is the grand-daughter of Public Witness 4 Mehar Singh, was living withthem. Appellant was living in the neighbourhood in Quarter No.195/C-1, Railway Colony, Basant Road. It is the case of theprosecution that on 12/06/1983, at about 12.30 PM or sowhile Public Witness 3 was playing outside the house, appellant accostedher and on the pretext of returning an ironing press belongingto her grandfather he induced her to accompany him to hisquarter on the first floor and there he committed rape on her.The girl after being subjected to this cruel assault at the hands ofthe appellant came weeping to her house and narrated the occurrenceto her grandmother. The grandfather of the girl also havingreturned learnt about to the occurrance but in order not togive any publicity involving the honour of their young granddaughter,the grand-parents thought it fit not to precipitate thematter although Sarupi has deposed that she had reprimandedand rebuked the appellant on the day of occurrence who hadbeen earlier proclaiming to be her Dharambhai.

(3.) It appears that due to injuries caused to her vagina thegirl developed septicaemia requiring treatment and she wastaken to Kalavati Saran Child Hospital on 8/07/1983 and shewas examined by Dr. Sharda Jain Public Witness 11 who prescribedcertain medicines as per prescription slip Ex. Public Witness II A. It is recorded in the prescription that the child had been assaulted.Mehar Singh then thought of taking up the matter in the brotherhoodas the appellant and Mehar Singh belong to same brotherhood.Admittedly the appellant was resident of VillageDhani Mir Dad, District Hissar. Mehar Singh is stated to havetaken her little child to the respectable persons of brotherhoodin that Village who then met as a Panchayat and after hearingthe narration of facts from Mehar Singh and the little girland also giving chance to explain the position to appellant'sfather Mangat Ram, they came to the conclusion that appellant had committed rape and proposed a punishment of blackeningthe appellant's face and then for taking him around in the villagewhich punishment was not acceptable to appellant's father.Thus. they prepared document Ex. Public Witness 7/B in this connection on 12/07/1983 and as the punishment was not agreed uponby the appellant, they prepared letter Ex. Public Witness 7/A addressedto the Gram Panchayat of Gamothi, District Rohtak, to whichvillage Mehar Singh belonged, recommending that the suitableaction may be taken against the appellant in accordance withlaw. Public Witness 7 Phoola Ram, Public Witness 8 Parbhati and Public Witness 1O Parkash arethe witnesses of the said village who were examined to provethese facts. Mehar Singh then decided to take up the matter withthe police and on A 6/08/1983, he made his statement Ex.PW4/A before SI Ramesh Chand Garg Public Witness 15 and FIR, copy ofwhich is Ex. Public Witness 121B, was registered. Public Witness 3 little girl was sent formedical examination and she was first taken to Dr. D. D.Khetarpal, Public Witness 2, who referred her to LNJPN Hospital as therewas no lady doctor present in the Police Hospital at that timeand he prepared his report Ex. Public Witness 2/B and thereafter the girlwas medically examined by a lady doctor on that very day as permedico legal report Ex. Public Witness 6/A. The record clerk of the saidhospital Shri K. K. Chhibber Public Witness 6 proved the report to be inhandwriting and signed by Dr. Behl. Dr. Behl was not examinedas her present address could not be found out. Document Ex.PW6/A shows that the patient, who is said to be victim of havingbeen subjected to rape by Balbir Singh, was having history ofmucus discharge from her private parts for the last one monthor so and she also found that pus discharged was present fromurethra and hymen stood torn and no fresh bleeding was presentbut vaginal introitus was found inflamed. Slide was also madeof pus discharge coming from introitus.