RAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The genesis of factual matrix lies in alleged rape of prosecutrix (name withheld) committed by uncle in relationship (appellant) which ended up in registration of an FIR under Sections 376, 342, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), at Police Station Sadar Jind. The appellant was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind for the aforesaid offences and ultimately trial ended in conviction and sentence of the appellant vide judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2003 and order of sentence dated 03.12.2003, respectively, under Section 376 'IPC' for committing the offence of rape. Rape is universally considered as moral and physical reprehensible crime in the society. It is an assault on the body, mind, privacy and entire fabric of the prosecutrix. Rape is a crime of violence and violation of privacy. It is often said that a woman who is raped, undergoes two crisis i.e. the rape and the subsequent trial in Court. Vulnerable and feeble victim of rape is humiliated and her dignity is shredded by the society. Because of the societal stigma attached to the crime, many a times such crime would go unreported by the victim in order to escape the repercussions. Instant case is also one of such cases wherein appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_445_LAWS(P&H)8_2014_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The factual matrix on which the prosecution version is founded is to the effect that prosecutrix, who was aged 15 years and student of 10th standard, moved a written complaint (Ex.PD) to police authorities. In her complaint, she stated that on the day of alleged occurrence i.e. 24.09.2002, she could not attend the school due to sickness of her mother. On that day, appellant-accused, who is uncle of prosecutrix in relationship, approached her and informed her about the desire of his mother to see her. Initially, she was reluctant to accompany him to his house but persistent requests of the accused made her to relent and she accompanied him to his house to meet his mother. When the prosecutrix entered the house of accused, he bolted the door and took her to chobara (Ist Floor) perforce. The appellant-accused made the prosecutrix laid down on the floor and raped her twice. The prosecutrix made an unsuccessful attempt to escape from the clutches of the accused, but she ended upon losing her nosepin in the process. The prosecutrix also suffered injuries on the lips. The prosecutrix called out for her mother-Smt. Krishna, who responded and rescued her daughter from the clutches of the accused. The accused also criminally intimidated the prosecutrix and her mother with dire consequences in case they disclosed the incident to any other person. When father of prosecutrix came at home in the evening, he was informed about the incident. On the complaint of prosecutrix, an FIR was registered. Investigation was set into motion. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital for medical examination. On confirmation of sexual assault committed upon the prosecutrix, the accused was arrested and medico-legally examined. After completion of investigation, challan was presented under Sections 323, 342, 376 and 506 'IPC' in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, who vide order dated 07.01.2003, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the case was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, who framed charge under Sections 376, 342, 323 and 506 'IPC', to which the accused-appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) To prove its case, prosecution examined Head Constable Om Parkash as PW 1, Constable Vikram Singh as PW 2, Constable Dilbag Singh as PW 3, prosecutrix as PW 4, Dr. Santosh Pasreja as PW 5, Ms. Bhawna Jain, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind as PW 6, Krishna Devi as PW 7 and ASI Krishan Kumar as PW 8. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence in defence was led by the accusedappellant. The trial Court after conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid under Section 376 'IPC', however, acquitted him of the charge under Sections 323, 342 and 506 'IPC'.