DINESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts : PW3 Saraswati wife of Ramphal was sleeping in one of the rooms of her residential house during the night intervening 12/12.4.1993. Her minor daughter-Rekha (PW-4), aged about 12 years, was lying besides her on a separate cot. At about 11.00 P.M. Dinesh accused armed with a knife came into the room, put a knife on Saraswati's chest, gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth and threatened to kill her. He then dragged her to his Baithak and committed rape on her. On an alarm raised by Rekha, her grand father Diwan Singh (PW-5) and her uncles Ram Karan and Mohinder came to the spot and then rushed to the Baithak of the accused, but he pushed the prosecutrix out of the room and bolted the door from the inside. Saraswati narrated the entire story to Diwan Singh and her brothers-in-law. Ramphal, the husband of the prosecutrix, reached home the next day and the matter was thereafter reported to the police (on 13.4.1993 at 4.30 P.M.) and on its basis, the FIR (Exh. PC) was recorded at the instance of Saraswati. She was also sent for medical examination, which was conducted by PW-9 Dr. (Mrs.) Shanta Gupta. The accused was arrested on 16.4.1993 and was medically examined by Dr. Krishan Kumar (PW-1). On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 458, 342, 366, 376, 506 and 190 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty was brought to trial.

(2.) THE prosecution in support of its case relied inter alia on the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Krishan Kumar, who had examined the accused and had found nothing to suggest that he was not capable of performing sexual intercourse; PW-3 Saraswati, the prosecutrix, PW-4 Rekha, allegedly an eye-witness to the dragging of her mother; and PW-5 Diwan Singh, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix.

(3.) THE trial Court in its judgment dated 21.9.1994 observed that merely because the FIR had been lodged after a delay of 17 hours, there was no reason to discard the statement of the prosecutrix as a woman would not put her chastity to stake so as to settle scores with an enemy. It was also held that a case of consent on the part of the prosecutrix could not be said to have been proved merely for the reason that she was 35 and the accused was 20 years of age as there was no suggestion on the part of the defence that the two were in any manner involved with each other. The trial court accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as under :-