SIS RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON October 15, 1984, Sunam, daughter of Badlu and her elder brother Ashok Kumar were working in their field in the area of village Teekli. Till about 3 p.m. they were both there, but at about that time Ashok Kumar went to the village for serving fodder to the cattle. Sunam stayed back in the field and continued working there for some time and then went towards the room attached to their tubewell. The accused-appellant came towards that tubewell from the side of his nearby field and requested her to lend him an electric bulb. She refused to oblige him, but in spite of that the appellant went inside the room Sunam suspecting that he might not steal the bulb, innocently followed him in that room. The appellant immediately shut the door of the room and forced her to lie on the ground and stripped her naked. The appellant started committing rape on her by penetrating his male organ into her vagina. Sunam started crying. Ashok Kumar, brother of Sunam, in the meantime, returned to her field and on hearing the shrieks of his sister, challenged the appellant. Rambir, a cousin brother of Sunam was also attracted to that place on hearing the cries. The appellant came out of the room, ran towards the side of the village. Ashok Kumar and Rambir noticed their sister bleeding and found that her pyjamas were stained with blood. Her vagina was bleeding. She narrated entire occurrence to her brother and cousin.

(2.) SUNAM was taken to the village. From the village she, her cousin brother Rambir and uncle Parbhati proceeded towards Gurgaon to lodge a report with the police. A.S.I. Shankar Lal P.W. of Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon met them at Badshahpur, which falls on the way. It was 10 p.m. at that time Shankar Lal recorded the statement of Sunam and got the case registered, went to the spot lifted blood smeared search from there, got Sunam medically examined from Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala of General Hospital, Gurgaon. The appellant was arrested on October 22, 1984, and was medicolegally examined by Dr. D. Prashar, P.W. 2 After investigation, the appellant was challaned, tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon under section 376, Indian Penal Code, and awarded 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- ; in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 year. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this appeal.

(3.) TWO vaginal swabs were prepared. Dr. Nirmala handed over these along with the shirt and the pyjamas of the prosecutrix to the police. The pyjamas and the shirt were made into separate sealed parcels. Dr. D. Prashar PW 2 had medico legally examined the appellant on October 22, 1984, at 10 a.m. and found that Smegma was absent from corona glands and there was no mark of injury over any part of his body. The underwear of the appellant was taken into possession by the doctor and was handed over to the police in a sealed parcel. PW 3 Sunam prosecutrix gave a detailed account of the version regarding the manner in which she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant inside the room of the tubewell when her brother was away to the village. She further narrated that the appellant had filed away from the scene when he was challenged by her brother and stated that she made the statement Exhibit PC to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered PW 4 Lal Chand, Statistical Assistant, office of CMO, Gurgaon has proved entry Exhibit PD Exhibit PD shows that Sunam prosecutrix was born on March 25, 1975. S.I. Ram Phal PW 5 is the investigating officer, who had presented the challan PW 6. Shivnath Singh Patwari prepared the site plan Exhibit PE. HC Mool Chand PW 7 is a formal witness, who kept the sealed parcels containing the material articles for safe custody before the same were forwarded to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for analysis. PWB Ashok Kumar is the brother of Sunam prosecutrix. He has corroborated the narration given by his sister Sunam and PW 9 Shankar Lal ASI is the principal investigating officer. The articles taken into possession during investigation were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhubhan and reports Exhibits PJ. PJ1 made by the Senior Scientific Officer-cum-Chemical Examiner were tendered in evidence. These reports indicate presence of human semen on the underwear of the appellant and human blood on the blood smeared search lifted from the place of the occurrence, on the vaginal swabs as well as garments of the prosecutrix.