BHUPENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The genesis of factual matrix lies in alleged rape of prosecutrix (name withheld) committed by appellant which ended up in registration of an FIR under Sections 376/452/342/506/216/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), at Police Station Sadar Rohtak. The appellant was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak for the aforesaid offences and ultimately trial ended in conviction and sentence of the appellant vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2003 under Sections 376/452/506 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_253_LAWS(P&H)9_2014_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The factual matrix on which the prosecution version is founded is to the effect that on 17.02.2003 at about 6.00 a.m., ASI Jai Singh (PW12) along with HC Parkash Chander and other police officials was present at the bus stand of village Khidwali when prosecutrix (PW4) a student of 7th class aged about 13 years along with her parents Ram Kumar (PW11) and Smt. Shanti Devi met ASI Jai Singh and gave her statement (Ex.PF) to the effect that on 15.02.2003 at about 9.30 a.m. she was alone in her house sweeping the floor. Her parents had gone to the fields for bringing fodder for the cattle. Her brother and sister had gone to school. At that time accused Bhupender all of a sudden entered her house and closed its outer gate from inside, opening in the village street. He gagged her mouth and threw her on the bed in their dokaria room. After forcibly breaking open the string of her salwar, he forcibly raped her against her consent. When she tried to raise noise, he pressed her neck and threatened to kill but she went on weeping. When her parents came from the fields, they heard her cries, her father knocked at the outer door and called her from gate saying that he had come. Whereupon the convict left her there and fled away through the staircase after scaling the roof. She opened the outer door and apprised her parents, who then went to the house of convict to lodge protest. Mother of the convict, father of the prosecutrix and other villagers assembled, they talked but failed to give justice to her. When prosecutrix along with her parents was going to report the matter to police, police officials met them and statement was recorded and prosecutrix signed the same as Ex.PE. On the statement of prosecutrix endorsement (Ex.PE/1) was made on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PK) was registered by SI Om Parkash (PW9) for offences punishable under Sections 376/452/342/506 IPC. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination with police application (Ex.PA/1) and Dr. Kulpratibha (PW1) in MLR (Ex.PA) noted the history of the case and examined her. After medical examination of the prosecutrix, lady doctor handed over to the police a sealed packet containing shirt (Ex.P1) and salwar (Ex.P2) of the prosecutrix along with two sealed vials; one having pubic hair and other having two vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix. A sealed envelop bearing five seals with forwarding letter was sent to Director, FSL along with sample seal.

(3.) These were duly taken in police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PN, attested by parents of the prosecutrix. Doctor opined that possibility of sexual assault on the prosecutrix could not be ruled out. Final opinion, however, was kept pending awaiting FSL report. After receiving FSL report (Ex.PB) same opinion was repeated. Human semen was found on the said two clothes of the prosecutrix and also on the underwear of the convict, later on seized from him after his arrest. ASI Jai Sing (PW12) after visiting the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan (Ex.PO) and on coming back to the police station, sealed parcels were duly deposited with MHC Balwant Singh (PW5). Initially convict was absconding. Radiologist, Dr. R.K. Verma (PW2) examined the prosecutrix and gave his report (Ex.PC) with x-ray films (Ex.P3 to Ex.P8) that ossification age of prosecutrix was between 12 to 14 years. On 21.03.2003, on the basis of supplementary statements of the prosecutrix and her father that parents of appellant/convict and his grandfather had conspired with the appellant/convict for the crime and were harbouring appellant, offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 216 IPC were added and on 01.04.2003 Bimla and Balbir Singh i.e mother and grandfather of the convict were arrested. Appellant/convict surrendered himself in the Court on 03.06.2003 and was formally arrested and was joined in investigation with the permission of the Court. Appellant/convict was sent for medical examination with police application (Ex.PD) and Dr. Ranvir Singh (PW3) vide his MLR (Ex.PD/1) gave opinion that there was nothing suggestive that appellant/convict was not capable to perform sexual intercourse. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.PL) dated 03.06.2003 of the appellant/convict, police recovered his underwear (Ex.P9), which he was wearing at the time of crime, from an almirah of his house, vide recovery memo (Ex.PM) in a sealed parcel with seal 'JSD' attested by HC Parkash Chander (PW10). It was deposited with MHC Balwan Singh (PW5).