BALDEO SINGH AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.1996 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Sri ganganagar in Sessions case No. 54/94 whereby the appellant, Baldeo Singh was convicted under section 376 Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default to further undergo one month S.I. and Smt. Reshama on conviction under section 366 Penal Code has been sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100.00 or in default to further undergo 7 days S.I.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Smt. Kamla wife of Shankarlal aged 20 resident of Daulatpura submitted an oral report that she was washing cloths at about 12 noon on 21.3.1993 in her house. The appellant No. 2 Reshama called her in her house. When she Went there, Smt. Reshma asked her to go inside the Kotha. She went in the Kotha where the appellant No. 1 Baldeo Singh was standing behind the doors who caught her and fell her on the cot. He put her hand on her mouth to prevent her from crying and the accused appellant No. 1 Baldeo Singh committed rape. Thereafter Reshama asked her to go back by jumping over the wall and she accordingly came to her house. She told about the incident to her husband. Her husband told about the incident to Shopat Pandit Surjaram and other persons of his caste. She and her husband approached Mahesh Budhania and went to Ex. Sarpanch Devilal who advised them to lodged the report. Hence oral report was made by Smt. Kamla on 21.5.1992 at 9.00 p.m. which was taken down in writing and a case under section 376 and Sec. 3(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. On completing the trial the impugned judgment was delivered against the appellants as mentioned above. The 'Salwar' and 'Jumper' of Smt. Kamla were seized and sealed on 22.3.1992 and were duly sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Human semen was detected on Salwar and vaginal slides. Semen was not detected on jumper. Human semen was also detected on 'kachchha' also recovered in consequence of the information furnished by appellant Baldeo Singh under section 27 of Evidence Act on 27.3.1992. Smt. Kamla was medically examined on 22.3.1992. Hymen was old torn there were no injury on her person. No definite opinion could be given about the recent sexual intercourse. Appellant Baldeo Singh was also medically examined on 25.3.1992 and there was nothing to suggest that he could not perform sexual intercourse.

(3.) Learned trial Court on examining the oral and documentary evidence on record found reliable statements of prosecutrix Smt. Kamla PW 1 and Shankar her husband PW 2 further corroborated by Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex. P/7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that there are glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix Smt. Kamla PW 1 and her husband Shankar PW 2. The prosecutrix has made vast improvement about the facts of the alleged incident and therefore her statement is wholly untrustworthy. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the conviction of the appellants cannot be passed on the basis of the lone testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration by medical evidence. She does not found corroboration for medical evidence. It is contended about the FSL report showing presence of human semen on 'Salwar' and 'Kachchha' that it has no evidence value in the facts and circumstances of the case as prosecutrix as well the accused are married persons and the presence of human semen cannot be connected with the alleged offence because there is every reasonable probability of the presence of human semen due to cohabitation with their spouse. It is further contended that even if the FSL report is considered then it merely leads to inference about sexual intercourse but not use of force i.e. offence of rape as alleged by the prosecutrix. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that there is no need for any corroboration of the statement of prosecutrix for recording conviction under section 376 Penal Code and the learned trial Court has rightly relied upon her statement. The prosecutrix found corroboration from the Forensic Science Laboratory report. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the sole testimony of Smt. Kamla is of sterling worth.