TIKKA RAM ALIAS LALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Sessions case No. 18 of 15.1.1993, dated December 15/17, 1993.

(2.) THE accused was tried for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case of the prosecution, prosecutrix Sharmila had gone to the fields of Ude for cutting grass on 5.9.1992. At about 11.00 a.m. the accused came there and tied the mouth of Sharmila with Dupatta and hands and feet with Chaddar. The accused broke the string of her Salwar and committed the rape upon her person forcibly and without her consent. She was able to open the Dupatta tied on her mouth and raised noise whereupon on hearing her noise, Wazir and Narain came there. On seeing them, the accused fled away. Sharmila narrated the whole incident to Wazir and Narain Singh. On reaching home, she narrated the occurrence to her mother who further narrated the incident to the paternal uncle of the prosecutrix Sharmila. Later on, he met the Sarpanch of the village. Then the Sarpanch convened a Panchayat and asked the accused and his parents to attend the Panchayat but the accused did not care to appear in the Panchayat. Then a report was lodged with the Police under Ex. PK. In pursuance of the same, a case was registered against the accused on 11.9.1992 in F.I.R. No. 271 in the Police Station Jhajjar under Section 376 IPC. The investigation was taken up and the prosecutrix was medico-legally examined. The accused was arrested on 18.9.1992 and in pursuance of the statement of the prosecutrix, the underwear which she was wearing at the time of incident, was recovered. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for an offence under Section 376 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked documents. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was called upon to enter in defence. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC and after rehearing the accused on the quantum of sentence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the accused preferred the above appeal.

(3.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix. It is amply supported by medical evidence and the testimony of the prosecutrix. P.W.2 who is the Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Jhajjar deposed that he examined Sharmila on 11.9.1992 and found an abrasion, skin was pealed off at distal phalanx of left thumb, size 4 cm long x 2.5 wide. He further deposed that hymen had fresh tags which did not bleed on touch and admitted only one finger. There was redness around the vulva. He opined that the possibility of rape could not be ruled out. He further stated after obtaining a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory he can only say that it was a case of rape. The medical evidence shows that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. P.W.3 who is the medical officer in C.H.C. Jhajjar also deposed that he examined the accused and found him capable of performing physical sexual intercourse.