SANTI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeals 409 of 1987 and 1034 of 1987. Five accused, who were Sikhs, were tried for offences of abducting an aboriginal woman by name Kuntibai (PW -2) and committing gang rape on her under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon convicted two of them and acquitted the remaining three. Cri. Appeal No. 1034 of 87 is a State appeal against the acquittal of those three accused persons. Accused Banti alias Balvinder Singh was convicted of the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years. The present appeal challenges the said conviction and sentence. Another accused named Jagtar Singh was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and 10 years respectively, both the sentences - - directed to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 87 is an appeal by Jagtar Singh.

(2.) THE prosecution story briefly stated was that on 20/8/1984 a married Gond woman by name Kuntibai (PW -2), aged 25 years, was bringing rice from Chhui Khadan and returning on foot to her village Nathela at about 4 p.m. When she was near a culvert of village Shyampur, a jeep overtook her. The jeep was being driven by accused Jagtar Singh. Three more Sikhs were seated in the jeep. Accused Jagtar Singh was a contractor in the village in which Kuntihai lived i.e. in village Nathela. He offered to give lift to Kuntibai. Kuntibai declined the offer. It was further the prosecution case that two of the Sardars seated in the jeep then forcihly dragged Kuntibai into the jeep. Kuntibai was whisked away to Chhindari camp, being the work site of accused Jagtar Singh. She was forcibly made to consume liquor at the camp. A fifth Sikh by name Banti (appellant in the present appeal) joined the other Sikhs in the camp. All the five Sikhs then forcibly ravished Kuntibai one by one on that night. On the following morning Kuntibai managed to slip away and came to her own house in the same village. She made a report (Ex. P -2) of the incident after 5 days i.e. on 25/8/1985 at 12.30 p.m. The said report expressly named Jagtar Singh and Banti as two of the five ravishers. With respect to the remaining three persons, it was stated in the report that Kuntibai would be able to identify them. Accused Jarmej Singh, Jasbir Singh and Inderj it Singh were arrested on 19/911985, 24/9/85 and 19/11/1985 respectively. All the three were identified by Kuntibai in three different test parades held in Rajnandgaon jailor Rajnandgaon tahsil office.

(3.) THE main question for decision in these appeals is whether the testimony of prosecutrix Kuntibai (PW -2) a married woman aged about 25 years, on which the prosecution story almost rested, and which testimony was accepted by the trial Court, was worthy of credence. In her evidence before the Court, Kuntibai (PW -2) described the entire prosecution story and particularly also how she was forcibly abducted in a jeep and taken to Chhindari camp, which was the work site of accused Jagtar Singh, who is a contractor. She also deposed that at the work site she was forcibly made to consume liquor and after stripping her naked, each one of the five accused persons had carnal knowledge of her on the night in question without her consent. She had managed to slip away from the camp on the following morning when all the five persons were lying asleep on the floor of a room in the camp.