RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted under sections 376. and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for having kidnapped or abducted and committing rape upon Prabhawati (P.W.2) during the night intervening 10th and 11th December, 1984 and also for causing injuries to her father Fateh Singh and brother Vijay Singh, P. Ws. 12 and 11, respectively. The crux of her statement which led to this conviction reads as under :

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the evidence on record, I do not feel the necessity of adverting to the details of the matter at length as I am of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecutrix itself does not inspire confidence and cannot safely be relied upon. The very version that as a matter of fact she was dragged from near her place of abode to a distance of more than 260 ft. (as per plan Ex. PJ) and she could not make any noise sounds preposterous. Further it is too much to believe that the petitioner appeared on the scene at that odd hour of the night and that too when she felt the urge and came out of her hut to urinate. Besides this, the well established proposition that it is very difficult, if not impossible, by an individual to commit rape upon a grown up healthy woman against her will, can also not be. lightly ignored. If any authority to support this proposition is needed then reference can be made to Pratap Misra and others v. State of Orissa, AIR. 1977 Supreme Court 1307,with advantage. It is on record that Prabhawati was born on 8th August, 1967 as per the birth certificate (Exhibit PJ) and was thus more than 17 years of age at the time of the occurrence. According to the evidence of the doctor, she was a young and healthy giri who was used to sexual intercourse and two fingers could easily be inserted in her vagina. As a matter of fact she was candid enough to admit in Court "I had the experience of intercourse with another person prior to this incident, I had experience 3-4 times. I had met that man about 1-1/2 months 11..." Besides this there are factors which belie her version of force having been used against her. She stated that she was dragged from the place where she was urinating to the place of occurrence and during that process not only her chappels got off her feet but there were drag marks all along the route she had been dragged. Neither any injury of any/sort was found on her feet by the doctor nor any pair of chappals was found by the Investigating Officer, who visited the spot the very next morning. As a matter of fact there was no injury which could indicate that any force had been used against her for the purpose of committing intercourse. No doubt the following injuries were found on the person of Prabhawati prosecutrix just after about 3-4 hours of the occurrence, when she was examined by Dr. Asha Kiran Bhutani P.W. 7) but these appear to have been caused by her parents and brother who had actually surprised her when they entered the house of Raj Singh, where the alleged occurrence had taken place :-

(3.) KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it looks probable that the prosecutrix Smt. Prabhawati was a consenting party to the whole affair and she being above 16 years of age at the relevant time, no case can be said to have been established against the appellant. Similarly it cannot possibly be held that she did not willingly accompany the culprit, whosoever he was, and thus no offence under section 366 I.P.C. is made out either. (See State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 819).So far as the conviction of the appellant under section 323, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, it appears unimaginable that he would be in a position to cause injuries to Vijay Singh and Fateh Singh, P.Ws I I and 12, respectively, at the time when he was surprised by them in the house of Raj Singh. So far as injuries to these witnesses were concerned, the plea of the appellant under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, appears to be more probable. It is the admitted case of the prosecution (A.S.I. Amar Singh P.W. 13) that the brothers of the appellant, namely Bhup Singh and Rajinder Singh had separately been sent up for trial under sections 325 and 348 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to these P.Ws. and others. That case concededly emanated from this very FIR.