HAR NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Har Nath from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 4. 7. 1950, convicting him under Section 376, Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) MT. Santok (21) is said to be the victim and Mt. Annopi (8) is the daughter of her 'jeth'. The case of the prosecution is that on 22. 8. 1950 at about mid-day she along with her niece went to her field to fetch some ears of corn. When she was about to return, the appellant came from behind and caught hold of her. She began to struggle, and thereon the appellant threw her down 3-4 times and committed rape with her. Mt. Santok thereafter went back to her village, and reported the matter. She then lodged an f. i. r. at the P. S. , and as a result of the investigation the appellant was put for trial under Section 376, Penal Code. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court denied the allegations of the prosecution, and his case was that he had falsely been implicated at the instance of one Bachittar Singh, Naib-Kaindar of the Sawar Estate. The trial court disbelieved the defence, relied on the prosecution version of the case, and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) IT is to be pointed out at the very outset that the prosecution version of the case has not appealed me in the least and appears to be full of improbabilities. The evidence of Mt. Santok is said to be corroborated by that of Ganesh and Mt. Anoopi. Ganesh went back on the statement made by him before the committing court and his deposition before that court accordingly was brought on the record of the trial court under Section 288, Criminal P. C. No doubt, the trial court did so correctly but the evidence of a witness who has swayed from one side to another could not be accepted unless there is sufficient corroborative evidence otherwise. It may be mentioned here that Ganesh on his own showing went on watching the alleged offence from the beginning to the end and also kept Mst. Annopi away at some distance from the scene. He neither raised a hue and cry for help nor ran to the help of Mst. Santokh though she was throughout crying for help. If any reliance is to be placed on this deposition, then it just shows that he was nothing less than an accomplice in the matter and, as such, no reliance could be placed on his evidence unless fully corroborated otherwise