MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT :- The appellant who has been convicted for having committed an offence under Sec. 376 of the Penal Code, was 17 years of age. He was a student of 10th Class. The prosecutrix was also almost of the same age. She was around 16 years of age. She was also a student. They were neighbours. The events came to light when symptoms of pregnancy could no longer be kept secret from the parents. This was almost four months after the first sexual contact. The alleged offence is said to have been committed ten years ago. Besides seeking reversal of the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the appellant at the time of commission of offence and the fact that both sides have settled in life, be taken note of and reformatory approach be adopted in this case. The appellant is said to be looking after his wife, children and parents. The prosecutrix is married to another person, who, as per the appellant's counsel, is not aware of the occurrence, which took place ten years ago. Any adverse publicity at this stage might affect her relationship with her present husband. The pregnancy which was said to be caused on account of the alleged relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix did not result in an offspring coming in this world. It is, accordingly submitted that the case be examined in the light of these developments also. This aspect of the matter would be adverted to again. The question as to whether a case is made out for reversing the judgment, be examined at the first stage.

(2.) The young and unmarried prosecutrix who was a student of 5th class at the time of occurrence was found to have been seduced into sexual relationship by the appellant. This was somewhere in the month of February, 1991. This activity continued for quite sometime. This as per the prosecution was repeated on occasions more than once. It was middle of May '91 (15th May, '91), the mother of the prosecutrix noticed that she was having continuous vomiting. When the prosecutrix was got medically examined, it was found that she was pregnant. The prosecutrix stated that on 15th May, '91, she had gone out to attend the call of nature. Even on this day, the appellant sexually assaulted her notwithstanding the fact that she protested against it. It was this behaviour of the appellant which prompted the prosecutrix to disclose the identity of the perpetrator of the crime to the mother. The mother of the prosecutrix in turn took her husband into confidence. The father of the prosecutrix made a complaint with the parents of the appellant. Instead of expressing sympathy and sorry for the act committed by the appellant, the appellant along with his parents and other relations came to the house of the prosecutrix, armed with sticks and other weapons and threatened the prosecutrix and her mother. This happened on 16th May, '91. It was in these circumstances a case was registered under Sections 376, 149 and 201 of the Penal Code. When the matter was taken up by the Sessions Judge, it was found that the charges of rape are independent of the incident which took place on 16-5-1991. The appellant was charged on two counts. This was on account of the first act of sexual assault committed by the appellant on 15th Feb. '91 and the other was the sexual assault committed on 16th May '91. With a view to support the prosecution case, the prosecutrix, her mother and father as also some other witnesses including the medical expert and Investigating Officer appeared in the witness-box. The appellant also lead evidence in defence. After the conclusion of the final arguments, the prosecutrix was got medically examined. This was done at the instance of prosecution. The prosecution case was that the age of prosecutrix was less than 16 years and that this factor was known to the appellant. It was urged that the appellant had taken the benefit of the tender age of the prosecutrix and violated her person. The prosecution relied on the school certificate of the prosecutrix where her date of birth was recorded as 23rd Jan. '78. A perusal of this certificate indicated that the age of the prosecutrix was between 13 to fourteen years when the acts attributed to the appellant were committed. The appellant, however, relied on the certificate of the Chowkidar. If the above certificate is taken into consideration, then the prosecutrix would be more than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. As the prosecutrix was found to be below sixteen years of age and as it was found that the appellant was responsible for violating her person, he was found guilty of the offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The Court of Session was of the view that the appellant had allured the young girl to have sex with him. Five years' rigorous imprisonment was imposed. This was done by taking into consideration the age of the appellant.

(3.) As the view expressed by the Supreme Court is that it is possible to record conviction in such cases on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix alone, it would be apt to notice what was said by her when she appeared in the witness-box.