HARI SHANKAR TEWARI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are interlinked being directed against the judgment dated 17-6-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Sessions Trial (ST/U) No. 114 of 2000 whereby the convict appellant-Hari Shankar Tewari of Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2003 has been convicted under Sections 376(2)(b) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.) and the accused-respondents Shri R. K. Shukla, Smt. Mita Dutta and Smt. Moutoshi Deb of Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2003 have been acquitted. The convict appellant who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(b) of the I.P.C. and another term of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default one month's rigorous imprisonment under Section 506, I.P.C. has preferred the above appeal against his conviction and sentence. He has also been slapped with an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid by him to the victim girl who is alleged to have been ravished by him. The State, on the other hand, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of abovementioned respondents, R. K. Shukla, Smt. Mita Dutta and Smt. Moutoshi Deb has challenged the impugned judgment. Thus the parties are before us, and, we have taken up both the cases for disposal by a single judgment.

(2.) Prosecution version : This is a case where the convict appellant who was the Principal of Jawahar Nobodaya Vidyalaya, Kakrabon, South Tripura, a Central Residential School, aged around 50 years is alleged to have ravished a minor school girl aged only 14 years, reading in Class VIII in that school, once more focusing how insecure even our children are in the custody of the highly placed libidinous protectors. The startling and shocking prosecution version, inter alia, may be noted thus : The victim girl whose name we do not propose to mention here in view of the principles laid down in Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code which has been enacted with a view to prevent social victimization or ostracism of the victims of sexual offence, but prefer to call her as Victim' was only fourteen, reading in Class VIII in the Nobodaya Vidyalaya of which the convict appellant was the Principal at the relevant time. This being a residential school she and her elder sister (PW-3) who come from poor parents of a remote village were residing in the Girls' hostel. The Principal Hari Shankar Tewari, the convict- appellant herein, had a daughter of victim's age named Puja reading in the same class and they were close friends. The victim used to often visit the quarter of Hari Shankar with Puja. On the fateful day, on 27-4-1998 at 2 p.m. she went to his quarter to borrow a book from his daughter Puja who was then found to be absence. There was no other family member except Hari Shankar in the quarter at that time. Hari Shankar told her that Puja was not in the quarter and then forced her into the room, closed the door, and drew her on the bed, stripped her naked, pressed her mouth by hand so that she could not raise alarm and then raped her. Such a sexual assault coming from a father like figure stunned her, struck her with fear and the moments of bewilderment made her unconscious. When she regained sense she saw the convict spraying water on her face after the act of sexual lust was over causing blood oozing out from her private parts, which had even no pubic hair. During the course of sexual act and before she became unconscious she heard somebody knocking on the door when the convict replied not to disturb him and to come later. Upset as she was with the suddenness of the attack, first of its kind in her life, she ran into deep emotional crisis and indelible traumatic experience. After she regained sense, she could fairly realize the damaging effect of the turmoil in her body and mind and then in the aftermath of the invidious storm she lapsed into sobbing tears. The convict threatened her of dire consequences had she dared to disclose to anybody his libidinal act He also threatened that not only she but even her elder sister (PW-3) who was reading in Class XI at that time would be expelled from the Institution if there was any attempt by her to disclose the incident. The emotional crises became furthered by a real one and the shattered victim was found leaving the quarter crying loudly by P.W. 14 who was at that time in front of his shop near the convict's quarter and the convict was found standing on the corridor of his quarter. His threat worked well as the victim failed to gather courage to confide to anybody the story of her plight. The convict did not stop there but repeated the sexual assault on her again after she returned from home at the end of the summer vacation. In January, 1999 she was again raped and every time he summoned her to his quarter at a time when none else was present. She was once examined by a Doctor in the quarter of the convict whom she did not know and after examination both the convict and the Doctor had left the room without telling her anything and without prescribing any medicine. Few days later the convict had left the station on leave. Few days after his departure on 1st February, 1999, after a period of 9 months from trie date of first sexual assault she felt pain in her abdomen and disclosed her condition to Smt. Moutoshi Deb, the accused-respondent, who was the House Mistress serving in the said Institution. The poor girl who was suffering from worm problem from time to time thought that the pain might be related to that disease only and never did she imagine that she could become pregnant following the sexual encounter. On the following day, she felt stomach pain again when the House Mistress asked her to go to Doctor Trivedi (P.W. 4) escorted by a peon but her pain was so severe she could hardly move out of the hostel and, therefore Dr. Trivedi had to be given a call. Before the Doctor did arrive, Mita and Moutushi, the two accused-respondents examined her, whispered something among them and then shifted her to their room where the other accused-respondent R.K. Shukla joined them. He abused her in filthy language and asked her to disclose the name of the person who was responsible for her pregnancy. He wanted to know whether she had developed intimacy with any boy of the school and having been insisted she for the first time disclosed to him that she was raped by the Principal, the convict-appellant. This revelation was not. taken at face value by Mr. Shukla who was then Principal in charge of the school in the absence of Hari Shankar. He directed her not to divulge the name of the Principal and wanted to know from her whether she had any elder brother in her house. When her answer was in the negative, he directed her to make her father responsible for her pregnancy with the threat that had she disobeyed his direction she would not be provided any medical treatment and she would be killed by pushing injection. Thereafter, Mr. Shukla had left the room and returned again with Dr. Trivedi (P.W. 4) at about 7 p.m. The Doctor examined her, found her pregnant and wanted to know from her who was responsible. She first uttered the word 'Sir' to indicate the Principal responsible for her pregnancy. But the Doctor insisted she should disclose full name of the rapist and then she requested him to direct all others present to leave the room, as she wanted to disclose to him the secret only in confidence. The reason is obvious. She was in excruciating labour pain desperately seeking relief, but found no courage to disclose the name of Hari Shankar in the face of towering and overawing presence of accused-respondents. But the Doctor insisted that she must divulge the name in presence of all. Fear-stricken as she was, the victim looked at the faces of the accused-respondents and whispered with reluctance implicating her own father as tutored. Dr. Trivedi advised the accusedrespondents to send her immediately to the hospital as her condition was critical and then when he was leaving the room the victim pulled him by his shirt whispered that she could not disclose the real name of the offender out of fear and that she wanted to tell him the name in secret. But the Doctor said he would listen her later and left the hostel. Despite Doctor's advice she was not taken to the hospital, instead Moutoshi and Mita, beganito play the role of a saviour for screening Hari Shankar and ordered her to utter her father's name again which would be taken in a tape recorder. They then forced her to sign a blank paper, which was later converted into a document (Ext. I) where she has been shown to have stated that her father was responsible for her pregnancy. She alleged that the content of the letter was not written by her. That apart under their direction she had to read contents of a document implicating her father which was recorded by them. This episode had taken more than two hours intensifying her suffering and risking her life. At about 9/9-30 p.m. Dr. Trivedi visited the hostel again and asked the respondents why the victim was not sent to the hospital in spite of his advice, which however evoked no reply. The Doctor examined her again and found she was about to deliver. He quickly sent for a nurse living nearby but before she could reach the victim had delivered a female child. After administering injunction and pushing saline the Doctor left the room with advice not to shift her within 24 hours as blood was oozing out from her private parts. But ignoring his advice, Mr. Shukla, the accused- respondent, who in the meantime brought her father into the scene from his house and forced him to sign some papers, parcelled her, the new born baby, her elder sister and her father to her far away house by a vehicle. The father (P.W. 8) was at a loss after reaching the hostel and knowing the plight of his daughter. He wanted to report the matter to the police station, but Mr. Shukla dissuaded him from lodging any complaint. The teacher of the school who accompanied them to their house the same night cautioned her father not to disclose to police what had happened, as it would land him in serious trouble? He further told him that the rival side being very powerful it would be futile for him to dare a battle. Some days after, 2/3 persons came to their house from Kakraban and offered a compromise proposal, which was however, not acceptable. The father (P.W. 8} was under tremendous pressure and threats as he was receiving telephone calls of dire consequences. Fear had overtaken the rustic father who failed to gather courage to lodge a complaint to police. He went into hiding on the advice of his wife. But the incident had licked to the newspaper which prompted the Women Commission to take up the cudgel, visit the house of the victim, provide all assurance and assistance and only then the victim lodged a complaint on 12-2-1999 to the Officer -in-Charge of Belonia Police Station which was later forwarded to the Udaipur Police Station under whose jurisdiction the alleged occurrence had taken place. In a situation, such as this, delay in lodging FIR could not be helped and the investigation was launched during which police examined several witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, got the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. arranged for DNA test, arrested the accused persons and submitted charge-sheet against the convict appellant-Hari Shankar Tewari, and the accused-respondents, R. K. Shukla, Mita Dutta and Moutoshi Deb under Sections 376{2)(b), 506/201, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as noted above. After a full-dressed trial, the convict appellant was found to be guilty and convicted accordingly while the accused-respondents were given acquittal.

(3.) Defence version : The defence version, sans unnecessary details, is that Hari Shankar had no sexual encounter with the victim and that it is her own father who had ravished her and made her pregnant. He has been falsely implicated at the instance of Smt. Sima Mukherjee (P.W. 7), a teacher of the same school against whom the convict appellant as Principal of the School had to take certain disciplinary action. The defence of the three accused-respondents is that they tried to save the image of the Institution for which they did not send the victim to the hospital and after delivery sent her to her parents' house. As regards the document (Ext. I) their defence is that it was signed by the victim itself, but written by her elder sister (P.W. 3) though they mistakenly named the victim as the author of the said document. They came to know about the cause of her pregnancy from the victim only when disclosed that she was raped by her own father.