JAGAN NATH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Jagan Nath son of Bhima Ram aged 30 years stood charged before the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape on Mst. Rukmani, wife of Gopi Ram of village Bhallaut on March 31, 1973. The Sessions Judge held the charge as proved. The appellant was convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The version of the prosecution case is as follows: - -

(2.) THE version of the prosecution has been stated in due detail. The prosecution mainly relies upon the testimony of the prosecutrix for proving the same. The law as regards credibility of the testimony of the prosecutrix in case of sexual offences, the question of acting upon the same as a basis for finding of a guilt and the necessity of corroboration to the same, may be stated as follows: - -

(3.) THE next question that arises is whether the sexual intercourse was committed with or without her consent and whether the appellant is guilty of an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It was urged by the learned counsel that in any case it was a case of consent as the prosecutrix had been going about at various places through congested areas and ultimately to a place where the appellant was alleged to have committed sexual intercourse with her. It is brone out from the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was taken by the appeal and from the level crossing towards Model Town and from there to Sonepat Adda and Gandhi Camp. The shops were open at that time. If she was an unwilling party and was forced to accompany the appellant on a cycle as alleged by her now, she could have raised alarm and brought the offender to book. But she did not do anything of the sort which clearly shows that she had been moving about with the appellant on her own accord and as such she was not as virtuous a lady as she was now mad; put to be. She did not raise alarm which implies that she was a consenting party to the commission of the said act. It is unimaginable that the appellant would have taken the prosecutrix to the different areas when there was traffic on the roads. In the instant case the incident occurred in the room of somebody to whom she never complained that the appellant had brought her there to commit rape on her. If she had raised alarm, some body would have been attracted to that room. She remained with the appellant for about five hours. It is difficult to believe that she could succumb to the threat continuously for that much time. The other aspect of the matter is that the place of incident is not such as to give a sence of security to the appellant in the normal course of things. On the other hand, repetition of sexual intercourse goes to show that it was a case of consent.