P. F. CONROY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Conroy has been convicted of committing rape of Mt. Rakhia (p.w. 1) and has been sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment. On 18th November 1942, Conroy was the guard on a goods train, No. 422 up, running between Chhindwara and Nainpur on the Bengal-Nagpur Railway. The train left Palari at 1-59 p.m. and reached Kewalari at 2-29 P.M. The rape is said to have been committed en route in the guard's brake-van between those two stations. Rakhia admittedly travelled in the guard's van, and J after the train had arrived at Kewalari she made a complaint to her husband Chhote (p.W. 3) that she had been raped by Conroy. Chhote (p.w. 3) and Hardawarilal (P.W. 4) admittedly travelled in the same train in a road-van, about three wagons away from the brake-van. Conroy is said to have denied the charge and to have asked Hardawarilal (p.w. 4) to get the matter hushed up with an offer to pay money. Chhote refused to allow the matter to be hushed up and went to the police station house, from where he returned with head constable Man Singh (p.w. 7), who questioned Rakhia and then went back to the police station house and wrote out the first information report, Ex. P-1. Rakhia was examined by the House Surgeon of the Women's Hospital at Chhindwara on 21st November 1942, and no sign of any injury was found upon her. Spermatoza were detected by the chemical examiner on her sari and on the trousers of the accused.

(2.) THE defence of the accused was that Rakhia and her husband Chhote and Hardawarilal boarded the train without his knowledge or permission, that he discovered Rakhia in his brake-van after the train had gone two miles, that she agreed to allow him to have intercourse with her on payment of Rs. 2, and that she made no report at Kewalari station until about 20 or 25 minutes after the train had arrived there. The suggestion is that the charge was concocted by Hardawarilal (p.w. 4), who was on inimical terms with the accused and other railway employees. As the accused has admitted intercourse between himself and Rakhia, the only question that arises for decision is whether the intercourse took place with her consent or without. The Courts below have stated the well-recognized rule that it is ordinarily regarded as unsafe to convict a man of rape on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, but they considered that the conduct of Rakhia, in making a complaint immediately on the arrival of the train at Kewalari, and the conduct of the accused, in arranging for Rakhia to travel in the brake-van alone with him and in subsequently denying the charge and trying to get it hushed up with an offer of money, are sufficient corroboration of the evidence of Rakhia.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the accused has argued at considerable length that the charge of rape was not made by Rakhia until 20 or 25 minutes after the arrival of the train at Kewalari. There must have been a considerable delay before the head-constable (p.W. 7) recorded the first information report, Ex. P-l, as he had first to come to the railway station and then to return to the station-house. The time of recording of this complaint was entered as 2 to 3 P.M. It is unfortunate that the time was not given accurately and possibly there was no timepiece in the station-house, but clearly at the earliest it could not have been recorded before 3 p.M. The lower Courts have discussed the evidence on this point at length and have come to the conclusion that Rakhia made the report without delay, and I see no reason to take a different view. I also agree with the view they have expressed on the evidence of the railway employees, who have given evidence in favour of the accused.