RAM MEHAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to FIR No. 148 dated 2.6.1989, under Sections 376, 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 and Section 379 of the IPC of Police Station Dardri, District Bhiwani. In a nutshell, the prosecution story is that one Smt. Bala is the widow of Balwant with 2 minors sons. She was living with her mother at her parents' house because of the death of her husband 2 years back. On 1.6.1989 she had gone to Bardha all alone for bringing Ghee for her personal use and for taking care of her gram crops. Ghee was not available and, therefore, she started from Bardha at about 2 p.m. She inadvertently boarded a 4-wheeler bound for Satnali instead of one for Dadri. At Satnali, when she was standing at bus stand, a 4-wheeler came for going to Dadri and she boarded the same. Two persons were also sitting in the vehicle, the names of whom she subsequently learnt as Ram Mehar Jat and Ram Kishan Jat and the third man was the driver of the vehicle, whose name, too, she learnt subsequently at Raj Pal Naik. They told her that the 4-wheeler was going to Dadri and then she boarded the same. They, however, knowingly delayed on the excuse of some defect in the vehicle. She tried to slip away but all the three of them threatened her. At sent time, all the three took her to a canal near Versana and there also they threatened her and took her to an old room, meant for storing water. There Ram Mehra committed rape upon her and thereafter Ram Kishan did so and Raj Pal Naik also committed rape upon her, with the result that her menstrual courses started. She was threatened by them not it disclose the incident, otherwise they would kill her. At about 11/12 night, the driver of the vehicle dropped them all at the crossing of Versana. Ram Mehra awakened a person, addressing as Karam Singh, on the pretext mentioned in the FIR. Karam Singh gave the key to Ram Mehar and went away. The prosecutrix was locked in that room by the petitioner and Ram Kishan. After giving threats to her, they got her clothes removed and against committed rape upon her. She become unconscious and in the morning, when she regained consciousness and put on her clothes, Ram Mehar told Ram Kishan that his pents which he had put on, contained Rs. 8,000/- which amount was not therein. He enquired from Ram Mehar where the amount had gone. Ram Mehar searched her person and gave a beating with a log of wood. Ram Mehar then threatened Ram Kishan. The amount, however, was not found. Thereafter both of them locked her in that shed from outside and went away. At about 5/6 a.m., she found some persons outside the shed. She raised alarm, attracting 2/3 persons from that crowd. They broke open to lock and set her free. After narrating the incident to them, she could not remain there and started for Dadri on foot. After some time, she got a fit and fell near a bush. At about 12 noon, she regained consciousness and boarding a bus, came to the Police Station. Another allegation was that after threatening to kill her and causing injuries, they also molested her. The petitioner was arrested on 9.6.1989.

(2.) I have been shown the medico-legal report of the prosecutrix who was examined at 4.30 p.m. on 2.6.1989. The medico legal report reveals that all the clothes worn by her were intact. There was no seminal stain, blood or mud, to a naked-eye examination. Public hair were not matted with seminal stains or blood. There was no history of burning of micpurition. She had not difficulty in walking. There was no history of her taking any drug 5 contusions were found, all brownish in colour, in right side of chest; on the middle 1/3rd of doral aspect of right fore-arm; on the lateral aspect of upper one-third of left thigh; on the lateral aspect of middle, 1/3rd of left thigh and on vertebral column in several region. The medico-legal report further revels that there was no sign of violence present over her breasts. It gives no sign of injury over labia minora, labia majora, pubic area and inner aspects of thighs. There was no semen stain on naked eye examination on public area and inner aspect of thigh. She complained no pain on vaginal examination. The opinion of the lady doctor was not specific about rape having been committed on the complainant, but in her opinion, possibility of rape could not be ruled out.

(3.) IN an occurrence of this type, resistance from the prosecutrix cannot be expected to the same extent as in a case of rape by one individual. It is well known that in a gang rape case sometimes corroborative injuries may not be available. There is no allegation that the prosecutrix was inimical or was acting at the instigation of somebody else. In any case, it is not a fit case to direct the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage.