NASARDEEN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has appealed against the judgment of Sessions court, whereby he has been convicted of offence of rape under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year and the entire amount of fine has been ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation.

(2.) PROSECUTION's case is like this. Appellant-accused is a Tantrik (exorcist ). The people of the area avail of his services to dispel evil spirits. Prosecutrix, who was around sixteen years of age at the relevant time, had been having epileptic seizures for three years prior to the occurrence. Occurrence took place on 19. 10. 2003. At the instance of some people of the area, the appellant was contacted by the guardians of the prosecutrix to provide treatment to her. He visited the place of the prosecutrix, about fifteen days prior to the occurrence. Thereafter, once the prosecutrix was taken to the place of the appellant situated in a different village, by her Mama and Taya. She was again taken to the place of the appellant-accused on 19. 10. 2003 by her Mama Babu ram (PW3) and brother Anant Ram (PW4 ). Appellant started the exercise for treating the prosecutrix by charm, around 10. 00 in the night. Half an hour after the start of that exercise, he asked Babu Ram (PW3), mama of the prosecutrix, to sit near the lighted lamp and Anant Ram (PW4), brother of the prosecutrix, to carry a 'rote' (thick hard bread) to a water body. Appellant proclaimed that the prosecutrix was to be bathed by him, as part of the treatment. He then took the prosecutrix to a field about 200 meters away from his house. Anant ram (PW4), the brother of the prosecutrix, and a son of the appellant accompanied the appellant and the prosecutrix upto the fields, with a bucket of water and 'rote'. From the field, Anant Ram (PW4) and the son of the appellant proceeded towards the water body for offering Rote. When the appellant and the prosecutrix (PW1) were all alone, appellant forced the prosecutrix to un-dress herself and then committed rape on her. Thereafter, he poured bucket of water on her and took her back home, Pros-ecutrix was looking pale and shaky when she reached the house of the appellant. She did not take meals and went to sleep. Next morning, accompanied by her Mama Babu ram (PW3) and brother Anant Ram (PW4), the prosecutrix left the appellant's place. Babu Ram went to his own village while the prosecutrix and her brother Anant Ram (PW4) went to their village. On reaching home, the prosecutrix got emotional, on seeing her mother and started crying. She told her mother that the appellant had subjected her to sexual intercourse. Next day, Bhago devi (PW2), the mother of the prosecutrix, accompanied by the prosecutrix and her son anant Ram, started for the Police Station at Bilaspur. Before that, a call was given to babu Ram (PW3) to join them at Bilaspur. Babu Ram (PW3) was informed at Bilaspur that the prosecutrix had been raped by the appellant. The four then went to the Police station, where the prosecutrix submitted application Exhibit PW1/a, written in her own hand. We may notice that the prosecutrix is an educated girl, having studied up to 10th standard. On the basis of this application, a case was formally registered. Prosecution was got medically examined. The doctor found that she was used to sexual intercourse. He also gave opinion that the possibility of the prosecutrix having been raped could not be ruled out, even though no physical injury was noticed on any part of her body, including genitalia.

(3.) TRIAL Court charged the appellant-accused with the offence of rape, under section 376, IPC and on his not pleading guilty, prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence. Prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW1, her mother Bhago Devi as pw2, her Mama Babu Ram as PW3 and her brother Anant Ram as PW4. The Doctor who conducted her medical examination, namely Dr. D. Bhangal, was examined as pw10. Some other witnesses were also examined, whose evidence is of formal nature.