RAM RATTAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 23/26.2.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby the convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo imprisonment for two years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is unfolded by the prosecutrix, who, in her complaint, Exhibit PG/1, addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station, City Rewari, has stated that she is a resident of village Gujar Ghatal, Police Station Dharuhera. She is 23 years. She failed in 10th class. The name of her brother and sisters are Kamlesh, aged 21 years, Dhirender, aged 19 years and Seema, aged 16 years. She was married to Ram Parshad son of Ganpat Singh, resident of Sultanpuri, Delhi on 10.5.1997. He brother and sisters are unmarried. Her father was serving in the Navy. When she was aged about 5 -6 years, her father raped her, for the first time. They were in Vashakapatnam at that time, where he was posted. Thereafter, they lived in Bombay till 1989. Her father continued raping her. She did not tell this to her mother to anyone else. In 1989, her father started living in Kachi Kothi, Model Town, Rewari in a rented house. Her father raped her in this house also. They lived in this house for about one year. Thereafter, they changed the house and rented the house of one Ram Parshad Jatia. They lived in this house for about one year. Thereafter, their family shifted to Khadda Basti, Rewari, where they lived in the house of Shanti Jatia for about 8 -9 months. Her father did not commit rape on her in this house. Thereafter, they shifted to village Gujar Ghatal, district Rewari in April, 1993. Her father did not rape her there. She got married on 10.5.1997. Her father used to give her telephonic calls that she should come to her parents house. When she used to come to her parents house, her father used to tell her that there was some important work and asked her to come outside. All these things came to the notice of her husband and father -in -law. They then turned her out of her matrimonial home.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has stated that this is a case, where demand of dowry has led to the false implication of the father of the prosecutrix by putting the prosecutrix under duress and threat of turning her out of the matrimonial house, unless she gave a false statement to the police against her father. As per statement of the prosecutrix made before Sunil Kumar, Assistant Sub -Inspector (PW -7), the Investigating Officer, she stated her age was 5 -6 years, when she was first raped and thereafter she was raped a number of times. Dr. (Mrs) Saroj Mann (PW -1) has stated in her testimony that she did not find any external mark of injury on the person of prosecutrix. There was no injury old or new in the vagina. Learned counsel has argued that it is not believable that the prosecutrix, a child of a tender age 5 -6 years on being raped, did not suffer any injury. In such like cases, bleeding takes place and the injury caused to the vagina, has to be attended to by a Medical Practitioner. It is strange that the prosecutrix did not disclose this fact to her mother or to her sisters regarding she being raped by her father. Prosecutrix, in her testimony before the Court, she has stated that she got pregnant in Bombay, when she was 12 years of age. Her father arranged for an abortion. This also she did not disclose. Abortion done on a child of 12 years is a major operation. It is not believable that the mother of the prosecutrix was not informed. Further, in her testimony, she has stated that all the members of the family lived together. The other persons of the family did not know about the rape. Her testimony in this regard is untruthful.