GOKUL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Gokul was convicted under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years by judgment dated 17-7-1981 passed by Sri J.N. Bansal, the then Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in S.T. No. 46 of 1981.

(2.) The relevant facts may be taken note of. Smt. Raina Bai was a married lady. On 22-8-1980 she had gone from her village Torhi to the market within Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur to make sundry purchases. She had been accompanied by Gomti and Shyam Lal. She happened to be separated from them in the market and when she was about to return to her village, the appellant Gokul who was her uncle through village kinship met her and persuaded her to return to the village with him. She agreed as it was evening time. When both of them were passing by the temple of Bankhandi Hanuman near culvert, the appellant dragged her towards the culvert and threw her behind the bushes. Then he committed rape upon her forcibly in spite of her resistance. He had gagged her mouth so as to guard against escape of any cry from her. Two villagers, namely, Chauda son of Umrao Chaudhary and Shyam Lal son of Kunji happened to pass thereby and were attracted to the spot. When they challenged the appellant, he ran away. She returned to the village and narrated the occurrence to her mother. Her father was not there in the village on that date and as such she could not venture out to the police station to make the report during night time. The report was got scribed by her by one Sri Pratap Singh Yadav and lodged at the police station the next day at 9.30a.m. A case under Section 376 of I.P.C. was registered and the investigation followed. She was subjected to medical examination on 23-8-1980 on 6.10 p.m. Dr. (Smt.) Surendra Kaur P.W. 6 had medically examined her. There was no mark of injury on her body or private parts. Hymen was torn at 3-4- places and old healed tears were present. Vagina admitted two fingers easily. Vaginal smear was taken and sent to pathological test. She was habitual to sexual intercourse. As per supplementary report, no spermatozoa was seen in the vaginal smear. No opinion about rape could be given.

(3.) Defence was of denial. The appellant, however, admitted to be related to the prosecutrix as her uncle. According to him, his father had some dispute with the father of the prosecutrix in connection with a wall and that was the cause of his false implication. He also stated under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that the prosecutrix had been married long back. He also produced his own father Nanda as D.W. 1 to say that there was dispute between him and Hariya father of the prosecutrix over a wall and he had lodged some reports at the police station in this behalf , which he proved.