KAHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :- Balram husband of Kamla (PW-3) was working as a Siri with Har Singh Arora of village Kera Khera. On 24.2.1992, Balram was irrigating the fields and Kamla left the house to serve tea to him. As Kamla reached near her house at about 3.30 p.m. on her return, she heard the screams of her daughter Vinod and on going inside the room, found Kahna Ram accused committing rape on her whereas Kanshi Ram was holding her by her arms. Vinod's screams also attracted Ganga Ram (PW-4) and on seeing them, the two accused ran away from the spot. Kamla and her husband, however, decided not to report the matter to the police so as to avoid any stigma on the family but as Vinod's condition deteriorated, they thought it advisable to lodge the report, which was ultimately lodged on 28.2.1992. Vinod was also subjected to a medical examination at 5.20 P.M. on 28.2.1992 by Dr. Sarla Sethi (PW-1), who observed that her hymen was torn, there was a tear on her vagina which extended to her rectum upto 2 cms. and that pus was being discharged and faecal matter was present. The accused were duly arrested and on the completion of the investigation, Kahna Ram accused was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Kanshi Ram was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.

(2.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Sarla Sethi, who had medico-legally examined the victim; PW-2 Dr. D.P. Godara, who had examined the two accused and opined that there was nothing to suggest that they were not capable of performing sexual intercourse; PW-3 Kamla and PW-4 Ganga Ram, the two eye-witnesses; and PW5 ASI Des Raj, the Investigating Officer. The report of the Laboratory, Exh. PL, that semen stains had been found on the clothes of the victim and the swabs taken from her were also produced in evidence.

(3.) THE trial Court in its judgment dated 4.2.1993 held that the fact that the rape had been committed stood proved on record from the evidence of Dr. Sarla Sethi (PW-4). The Court also relied upon the evidence of Kamla (PW-3) and Ganga Ram (PW-4) and accepted the story given by them that they had in fact witnessed the rape being committed by Kahna Ram. The Court, however, held that as Kamla had not been able to give the name of Kanshi Ram's father, there was a possibility that he had been falsely roped it. The Court accordingly, while acquitting Kanshi Ram of the charge, convicted Kahna Ram for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.