BHONRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals, one No. 116 of 1951 by Mst. Bhonri from Jail and the other No. 78 of 1951 by Gulab Chand, Narain Singh, Mohar Mal, Radha Kishan and Ganpat Singh. Mst. Bhonri and Ganpat Singh have been convicted under sec. 376 read with sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. Ganpat Singh has also been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/-and Mst. Bhonri to a fine of Rs. 100/ -. The other accused have been convicted under sec. 376 and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- each.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows - One Mst. Prem Kumari a Khatri girl came out of her father's house on the morning of 19th June, 1950 in the town of Alwar on account of a quarrel with her brother and seated herself under a tree. She was weeping when the appellant Mst. Bhonri came to her and began to shed crocodile tears. She offered the girl to take her to her father's house but instead of taking her to her father's house she took her to her own house where she kept her confined for two days. When the girl asked her to take her to her father's house, she told the girl that if she would raise an alarm, she would be arrested. Next day by the mid-night train Mst. Bhonri started with the girl to Sambhar where she arrived in the forenoon, and proceeded to Kotwali Sambhar and enquired about Gulab Chand constable, who was not there. THEn she took the girl to Narain Singh's house and there she was made to drink and then rape was committed upon her by Gulab Chand and Narain Singh. Mst. Bhonri kept hold of Mst. Prem Kumari's hands and gagged her mouth when she was being raped. Ganpat Singh kept on guard when that nefarious act was being committed. In the evening, Mohar Mal and Radha Kishan also forcibly ravished the girl. THEreafter,. Mst. Bhonri, with the girl, was found near the hospital at Sambhar by Kalu Ram constable who sent them to Kotwali Sambhar for a medical report as they appeared drunk. THE girl was sent to the hospital and it was reported by the doctor that her mouth was smelling of liquor but she was not in unconscious state. On coming back to Kotwali, she lodged a report at about mid-night in consequence of which the accused were arrested. Identification proceedings of Mohar Mal, Ganpat Singh and Radha Kishan were held before a Magistrate of Sambhar and the petticoat of the girl and the trousers of Narain Singh and Gulab Chand were sent for chemical examination. THE girl and the accused Gulab Chand, Narain Singh, Mohar Mal and Radha Kishan were medically examined. A site plan of the house of Narain Singh, where the rape is said to have been committed, was prepared and a bottle alleged to be of liquor, a tumbler and a cup were also seized from Narain Singh's house. All the accused were subsequently challaned. Mst. Bhonri under sec. 366 and 376/109 I. P. C. , Gulab Chand under sec. 376/109 I. P. C, and the others under sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them were committed to take their trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, for the offences given above. THE learned Sessions Judge held two trials one of Mst. Bhonri under sec. 366 I. P. C. in which also the judgment has been delivered today and the other under sec. 376 and 376/109. In this judgment we are concerned with the last named trial.

(3.) WE do not much rely upon the evidence of Kalu Ram and Narain Singh P. Ws. 1 and 2 for the corroboration of Mst. Prem Kumari's statement because they have made improvement in the statements at trial. The prosecution should know7 that there is no use making unnecessary improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses which are inconsistent with their previous versions. Many a true case ends in acquittal simply on account of this tendency of the prosecution. The duty of the prosecution is to put the true version before the court and it should not be anxious to secure a conviction of the accused by putting forward false exaggerated evidence. If there is no sufficient evidence, for the conviction of the accused, it should not be the concern of the prosecution to bring forward evidence which is not true. WE have, therefore, ruled out of our consideration the evidence of Kalu Ram and Narain Singh P. Ws. 1 and 2 as corroborative evidence of Mst. Prem Kumari but her statement read with the corroborative evidence discussed above convinces us that it is true and leaves no room for doubt that Narain Singh and Gulab Chand committed rape upon her. They have been rightly convicted.