TILLU @ SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been instituted by Tillu @ Subhash son of Ram Roop and Naresh son of Shiv Charan against the judgment and order dated 15.3.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby they were found guilty and convicted under Sections 376(2)(g), IPC, and sentenced vide order of even date to undergo R.I. for 5 years each. However, they were not convicted under Section 506, IPC as it was stated to have been merged with the other offence.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that on 1.9.1989, PW4 Anita prosecutrix, resident of village Bapora, had gone to her fields known as distanwala Khet along with her nephew Sudhir to bring grass. Sudhir sat under the shadow of a tree while Anita prosecutrix started uprooting the grass. It was about 10.45 A.M.

(3.) PW 4 Anita and Sudhir returned to the house and Anita told the whole occurrence to her Jethani Bimla who advised her to wait for the return of her husband who was away to Bhiwani for doing work as she (he ?) was employed in a private concern. Her husband Krishan Kumar returned to the house on 2.9.1989 and Anita told the whole occurrence to her husband. Krishan Kumar took his wife Anita to the police station where she made a statement which was reduced in the form of FIR Ex. PE. She produced the Petticoat Ex. P1 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF by PW6 ASI Sampat Ram, after making it into a sealed parcel. ASI Sampat Ram visited the spot and took into possession pieces of broken bangles vide memo Ex. PG attested by Krishan Kumar husband of the prosecutrix. He prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes. He also recorded the supplementary statement of Anita in which she stated that the name of her nephew is Sunil Kumar and not Sudhir Kumar. She was sent to the hospital for medico-legal examination. PW3 Dr. Vandana Pathak medico-legally examined Anita on 2.9.1989 at 7.20 P.M. and stated that she was married about 5 years back and was having two children. She further stated that there was no evidence of any external injury on her body or external genitals. She further stated that there was no injury on her vaginal wall and no bleeding was present in the vagina. She further stated that vaginal swabs were taken and sent to the Chemical examiner for analysis. On seeing the report of Chemical Examiner she stated that sexual intercourse had taken place with Anita. She proved the reports of the F.S.L. Ex. PD and PD/1.