NANAK CHAND BALLARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under section 376, Indian Penal Code, and alternatively under section 354 Indian Penal Code, and a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on the 21st of November, 1960.

(2.) The appellant Manak Chand son of Balla Ram, is a school teacher and is stated by Shrimati Sahib Kaur, the prosecutrix, to be her dada (a grand-father) in collateral relationship. He is about 35 years of age and Shrimati Sahib Kaur is about 19 years old. She is daughter of Mohan Lal and was married to one Hukam Chand about four years ago. She is the mother of one child about 11/2 years old. On 11th April, 1960, when she had come to her father's house, at about 5 or 6 p. m. and was returning from her father's field situated about 400 yards away from the village abadi, she was accosted by the accused, who emerged out of some bushes and catching hold of her threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. Chander P. W. 2 attracted by the noise made by the lady came to the spot, but the accused made good his escape. Chander, who is about 50 years old, was feeling slight feverish, but nevertheless he tried to chase the accused, but did not succeed in catching hold of him. He, however clearly identified the offender to be the present accused. The woman went to her village and Chander shouted out to other persons, who came to the spot and were informed of the incident. They all went to the village and collected at the house of Sheo Ram, lambardar, P. W. 6 but after considering the matter, they decided not to take the case to Court but to, try by social pressure to turn Manak Chand accused out of the village. As Sheo Ram has put it in his statement, their village is small and all the inhabitants live like one family. If the matter were taken to the police, then according to them, that would be a blot on the whole village. As a result of their deliberations, the elders of the village, dissuaded Mohan Lal father of Shrimati Sahib Kaur, from lodging a report with the police. It, however, appears that Mohan Lal was all the time smarting under the insult and finding that the elders of the village had not succeeded in turning Manak Chand out of the village he ultimately wrote to a collateral of his, Dharam Paul Singh by name, who has appeared as P. W. 7, and who was then a military employee at Ferozepore to come to see him for consultation. In response to this letter, Dharam Paul Singh took leave and came to the village on 27th April, 1960. Mohan Lal narrated the whole incident to him and also told him that the respectables of the village had decided to ex-communicate the accused and had advised Mohan Lal not to take the matter to the police. The village respectables having failed to take any effective steps to turn the accused out of the village, Mohan Lal asked for Dharam Paul Singh's advice. Dharam Paul Singh thereupon thinking that the matter had been delayed too much for going to the police, sent telegrams to the Chief Minister, Punjab; Education Minister, Punjab; and the Secretary to the Education Department and also to some other authorities on 2nd May, 1960. In pursuance of these complaints, the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, went to the village on 10th May 1960, and held an enquiry. It is in pursuance of this enquiry that criminal proceedings resulting in the present conviction were started and indeed, this was done in pursuance of a letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner on 10th May, 1960, to which was attached a copy of the statement made by Dharma Paul Singh.

(3.) At the trial, Shrimati Sahib Kaur appeared as P. W. 1 and narrated the whole incident about the criminal assault to which she was subjected by Manak Chand accused on the day of occurrence. Chander P. W. 2 who too reached the spot immediately after the incident has also deposed and corroborated Sahib Kaur's statement. An attempt was made to elicit from Chander P. W. 2, whether or not Sahib Kaur possessed good moral character. As a matter of fact, it was also suggested to Sahib Kaur, P. W. 1 that she was a woman of loose character. The witness refuted the charges. Kishan Lal, P. W. 3, Zahirdan P. W. 4, Mohan Lal P. W. 5, the father of the unfortunate lady Sheo Ram P. W. 6 at whose house the respectable residents of the village gathered together to decide as to what action should be taken; Dharam Paul Singh P. W. 7 the man who actually sent telegrams etc. to the authorities, have all appeared in the witness-box and made statements in support of the prosecution version. Mohan Lal father of the prosecutrix, has stated that about 10 or 15 minutes after his daughter's departure from the field for her house he also left for the village on camel back. On reaching the place of occurrence, he heard Chander, Kishan Lal and Zahirdan loudly talking about the action of the accused. The witness felt miserable on hearing the incident and collected the respectable people of the village to decide on the course of action to be adopted. According to him, even the brother of the accused was called before the Panchayat but in order to avoid a blot on the character of the girl and also to avoid further publicity to the incident, they had decided not to take the matter to police but to try to ex-communicate the accused and to turn him out of the village. Sheo Ram has stated to the same effect and Kishan Lal and Zahirdan have corroborated the Statement of Chander, P.W. 2. Kishan Chand, P. W. 8. Stenographer to the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, produced the enquiry file against Shri Manak Chand accused, from which it is clear that Dharam Paul Singh had actually sent telegrams, as deposed by him.