SHISHPAL ALIAS BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 23rd July, 1986 Om Parkash father of the prosecutrix, PW5 Kaushalya had gone out of the village for doing Katha and her brother Radhey Sham had also gone out to meet his in -laws, whereas her mother Nirmal was alone in the house and was confined to bed as she was sick. At about 1 p.m. the prosecutrix had returned to her ghar from the fields along with a bundle of grass and when she was about to leave the ghar after putting the bundle of grass in the kotha containing a toka machine, the accused who had already concealed himself in the adjoining kotha caught hold of her, molested her and thereafter raped her. On an alarm being raised by her, her sister -in - law Karampati PW8 and her brother Ram Kishan came there and although the latter tried to apprehend the accused, he managed to run away. In the process, the accused also fell on the ground and received some injuries. The prosecutrix was thereafter taken to her parents' house by PW8 Karampati where she narrated the incident to her mother. The prosecutrix along with Karam Pati then went to the police Station Samalkha and made her statement at about 4.30 PM and on its basis the formal FIR Ex. PG was recorded. The prosecutrix was then taken to the Primary Health Centre, Samalkha where she was medico legally examined by PW 1 Dr. Savita Gogna at about 6.15 PM and four abrasions were found on her person, two on her mouth, one on the right elbow joint and another on the right clavicle. A case under sections 354, 452 and 506 IPC was at that stage registered against the accused. The family members of the accused then made a raula in the village that a case under section 376 IPC was not being allowed to be registered at their instance. The prosecutrix then along with Karampati PW8 also went to the office of the Superintendent of Police Karnal at about noon and presented an application before him which was duly endorsed by the SP to the SHO on 25th July, 1985 itself and a direction was issued to get the prosecutrix examined from the Civil Hospital Karnal. Dr. Anita Aggarwal PW2 then examined the prosecutrix at about 2.15 P.M. on 25th July, 1986 and she confirmed the four injuries that had been noticed by Dr. Savita Gogna PW1. This doctor also found that hymen had been ruptured; the edges were tender and were bleeding on touch. She stated that the possibility of rape on the prosecutrix could not be ruled out and that she was not habitual for sexual intercourse. On the receipt of this report an offence under section 376 IPC was also added on against the accused. On 13th August, 1986 the prosecutrix was also radiologically examined by PW9 Dr. O .P. Gogia and he opined that she was between 15 and 17 years of age. After completion of the investigation the accused was charged under sections 376, 452 and 506 IPC.

(2.) IN order to prove its case the prosecution relied primarily on the evidence of Dr. Savita Gogna PW1, Dr. Anita Aggarwal PW2, Kaushalya the prosecutrix PW5, Karampati PW8, Dr. O.P. Gogia PW9 and ASI Kasturi Lal PW11. After the close of the prosecution case, the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he stated that he had been given a beating by Vidhya Sagar and Radhey Sham, the relatives of the prosecutrix and in order to save their skin they had got him falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) THE trial court came to the conclusion that on the evidence on record, it was clear that the prosecutrix was about 14 -1/2 years of age at the time of the occurrence and that the evidence of the prosecutrix as corroborated by the statement of Karampati PW8 inspired confidence and that as a matter of fact the prosecution could rest exclusively on the statement of the prosecutrix; that the stand of the accused that it was a case of simple molestation but on the intervention of the Superintendent of Police a case under section 376 IPC had been added on was not acceptable as it could not be said that the ASI, a petty police officer, had been able to pressurise Dr. Anita Aggarwal PW2 to give a report with regard to the commission of the rape; that the discrepancies, if at all, in the prosecution evidence were trivial and to be ignored and having held as above, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 7 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/ - under section 376 IPC and in default of payment thereof to further undergo 6 months' RI, to two years' RI under section 452 IPC and 6 months' RI under section 506 IPC; all the sentences to run concurrently. Hence this appeal.