GOVINDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 20th July, 1988 at about 5.30 p.m., Kalpana Sumathi, the victim woman was proceeding with a plastic green vessel carrying in her hand to the bore-well pump situated in a school compound in order to fetch water by crossing through the police station. At that time, she had never dreamt that she would be whisked away and forcibly taken inside the police station and gang raped by four police officials one after another.

(2.) THE irony is that victim woman was taken inside the store room of the police station by a woman Sweeper working in the police station. THE incident was so horrible that she was beaten by police officials with sticks inflicting injuries all over her body and then she was raped by the police personnel from the rank of Inspector of Police to the rank of Constable one after another.

(3.) THEREAFTER, there was a public agitation expressing their protest for the inaction of the police. Then, an enquiry was conducted and the public were invited to give statements.(i) On 1.8.1988, P.W.19 after such inquiry, sent a report to the District Collector. Then, on 3.8.1988, he was directed by the Collector to initiate inquiry under Clause.145 of the Police Standing Orders to find out the involvement of the police officials in the incident. On 4.8.1988, P.W.19 went to the Bangalore hospital and examined P.W.1 and obtained her statement Ex.P54. Though she stated in Ex.P54 that she was forcibly abducted by A5 to the police station, she did not give further details, as she was not able to remember them. So, again on 6.8.1988, he obtained another statement Ex.P56 from the victim in which she gave all the details about the gang rape and beating etc. by the police. Then, he continued the inquiry and finished the same and then sent the report to the Collector.(j) Accepting the report, the Collector then passed an order directing P.W.19 R.D.O. to file a complaint against the police officials concerned. Consequently, the permission was granted to file a complaint to prosecute the officials as well as the Sweeper woman. Then, on the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, the bloodstains taken from the scene of occurrence were sent for the Chemical Analysis and on the requisition of P.W.19 R.D.O., an identification parade was conducted in the presence of P.W.9 Judicial Magistrate. In the parade, A1 to A4 were correctly identified by P.W.1. (k) After observing all the formalities, the Judicial Magistrate concerned committed the case to Sessions Court. THEREAFTER, the charges were framed against the accused by the Sessions Court and trial went on.(l) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P1 to P70 were filed and M.Os.1 to 33 were marked on the side of prosecution. The accused while answering the questions under S.313 Cr.P.C., simply denied their complicity in the crime. They did not adduce any evidence on their side.(m) On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court found all the accused guilty under S.366, 366 read with 109,,342 read with 109, 376, 326, 307, 307 read with 109, 376 read with 109, 201 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. The Court sentenced A1 to A4 to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under S.366 read with 109 I.P.C. R.I. for one year for the offence under S.342 read with 109 I.P.C. R.I. for eight years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under S.376 I.P.C. R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under S.326 I.P.C. sentenced A4 to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under S.307 I.P.C. sentenced A1 to A3 to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under S.307 read with 109 I.P.C. sentenced A2 to A4 to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under S.201 I.P.C. and sentenced A5 to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under S.366 I.P.C. R.I. for one year for the offence under S.342 I.P.C. and R.I. for five years for the offence under S.376 read with 109 I.P.C. 7. Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for A1, the Inspector of Police, the appellant in Crl.A.No.765 of 1993 would submit the following contentions, while challenging the conviction imposed on A1:"(1) P.W.1, the prosecutrix was not doing monetarily well. In order to get a job and to get compensation, she falsely implicated the accused, the police personnel by instigating the people to make a public agitation at the instance of the Communist Party. Even before the recording of the statement from the victim, the Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer fixed the police personnel as accused and filed a false complaint in order to satisfy the public. (2) The statements obtained during the enquiry conducted by the R.D.O. from the witnesses and A5 are not admissible in view of S.4 of the Revenue Enquiry Act. (3) The testimony of P.W.1, the prosecutrix, is full of contradictions and her version is highly improbable, especially when she did not come forward with the said version at the earliest point of time. The scene of occurrence, namely police station is situated in a busy area surrounded with shops, Bank, School, play ground and police residential quarters. Buses will be parked near the road side. In the said situation, it is improbable to contend that she was forcibly abducted and locked in the police station and she cried and banged the door and at that point of time, a gang rape was committed. (4) The material witnesses, viz., father of P.W.1 to whom P.W.1 talked earliest, one Munusamy Achari who had seen that P.W.1 was forcibly dragged away by A5, one Sampathkumar to whom she talked after regained consciousness and D.S.P. and Sub Inspector of Police who had initially investigated the matter, had not been examined. Non-examination of these important witnesses would draw adverse inference against the prosecution. (5) Though the occurrence took place on 20.7.1988 and the victim was conscious even on 21.7.1988 as admitted by the Doctor P.W.18, she belatedly came forward with the statement of accusation against the accused only on 6.8.1988. (6) P.W.18 Doctor who examined the victim on 21.7.1988 gave opinion that there is no clinical evidence of rape.".