Bhola Ram vs State of M.P.

Dipak Mishra, J.

Situation do arise in life when one has to singularly fight for one''s honour and self respect and carry on the crusade without succumbing to any extraneous pressure. In the instance case the prosecutrix, a victim of carnality of the accused-appellant, refusing to play casabinaca to her husband''s intentions, has followed the dectate of her solemn conscience and fought alone to see, that a wrong door destroying the dignity of a woman does not escape from the teeth of law.

Stated briefly, the prosecution case is that on 10.9.85 the prosecutrix an aunt of the accused, was alone in her house as her husband, the uncle of the accused, had gone out. Having complete knowledge that the prosecutrix was alone and her husband was not at home the accused obsessed with carnal desire and possessed with the passion, entered into the house of the prosecutrix and after making certain formal inquiries about her husband, the accused caught hold of her and made her lie down on the ground and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Efforts to shout was curbed by putting a towal into her mouth. Her attempt to wriggle out bacame ineffective as he overpowered her. After finishing the sexual intercouse the accused fled away. Thereafter the prosecutrix came out and shouted. Hearing her noise, he came and threatened to do way with her in case she raised a voice. She informed the matter to her sister-in-law, Jayabai and later on to her husband. She lodged the F.I.R. setting the criminal action in motion, but when the police came to investigate, her husband and others did not support her. She stood embedded in her version and the investigating agency in course of investigation got the prosecutrix medically examined, seized her ''Sari'' and the underwear of the accused and send those articles for serological examination. After compelling the other formalities, chargesheet was laid u/s 376 I.P.C. against the accused.

The defence took the plea of innocence and false implication. The further plea of the accused was that the prosecutrix had quarreled with the brother of the accused and the accused had given some slaps to the daughter of the prosecutrix, for which concocted allegations have been made against him.

The prosecution to bring home the charge against the accused examined four witnesses, P. W. - 1 the lady doctor, who had examined the prosecutrix, P. W. 2 is the doctor who had examined the accused; P. W. 3 is the prosecutrix and P. W. - 4 is the investigating Officer. On behalf of the defence one witness was examined.

The learned trial Judge on consideration of the entire evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Mr. P. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment has submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix in unbelievable as there are material inherent contradictions in her version. It is high-lighted that the accusation are absolutely improbable inasmuch as the husband of the victim lady has not come forward to lend support. The learned counsel for the appellant has also canvassed that the testimony of the prosecutrix has not received corroboration from the medical evidence and, therefore, her version should not have been given stamp of credibility and unimpeachably to form the bottom-core for conviction. The alternative submission of Mr. Das is that the petitioner has suffered immensely during the trial and pendency of this appeal, hence he should be leniently dealt with.

Mr. B. P. Athye, Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State has supported the judgment for the reasons indicated therein and has vehemently combated the submission relating to lenient delineation.

To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, I have perused the impugned judgment with utmost keenness and anxiety. I have been taken through the evidence of the witnesses by the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecutrix has deposed in a clear and categorical manner that the accused entered her house in absence of her husband and committed forcible intercourse with her. She has give a vivid description how the accused made the formal inquiries and eventually caught hold of her, made her fall on the ground, forced a towal into her mouth and committed sexual assault. She has also stated that when she shouted after the act was over, the accused threatened her with dire consequence. She has also explained that because of threat and absence of her husband at the relevant time, she could not report at the police station in promptitude. It is perceptible from her evidence that her ''Sari'' was seized by the investigating agency. She has stood firm in the cross examination. A futile attempt was made by the defence to introduce animosity because of a quarrel which had occurred a decade and half back between the brothers of the accused and the victim lady. She had disputed the quarrel relating to the children. There is also attempt in the cross-examiantion that there is party faction in the village and she belongs to the party of ''Sarpanch''. Apart from her having remained unshaken in the cross-examination she has also answered the queries of the Court with appreciable clarity. She has stated that there had been injuries on her and also she had caused some injuries on the accused when he had tried to escape.

The version of the prosecutrix also gets corroboration for the evidence of P. W. - 1 the doctor who had stated that she had found the prosecutrix acquainted to sexual intercourse and there was abrasion on the fore arm of the right hand. She has also opined that she had examined a ''Sari'' where she had found stains of semen. Her opinion, has been brought on record under Ext. P-2 PW-2, the doctor who had examined the accused has also opined that he had the capabilities to have sex and the "underwear" which he had examined, was stained with a seminal stains. He has also given a finding that there were injuries on the chest of the accused. His report had been brought on record as ''Ex-3''. From the serological report, Ex. P. 10, it is apparent that on ''Sari'' and ''Chaddi'', Articles ''B'' and ''C there was seminal stains.

Reading the evidence of P. W. - 3 in juxtaposition with the evidence of the doctors there is no reason to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix. True it is, there are some discrepancies relating to injuries and the seizure of bangles but they do not substantially affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the appellant had proponed with assiduous emphasis that the testimony of the prosecutrix should not be given acceptation inasmuch as her husband has not come forward to support her even to the minimum extent that she had narrated the incident before him and he had suggested for lodging the F.I.R. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of P. W. 3 it is noticed that the prosecutrix herself stated that alter the police arrived everyone including her husband changed their attitude. The learned trial Judge has noted that while saying so she had burst into tears. The Court below had the occasion to watch the demeanour. That apart when the prosecutrix had knocked the doors of justice and has exhibited her courage to light for her individual dignity and personal purity, there is no justification to discredit her testimony solely on the ground that her husband has not stood by her. It is she and she alone who had undergone the mental agony the physical torture, the social insult, the anguish for loss of self respect and tribulation of soul. Under these circumstances if she has refused to succumb to the collective pressure and has come forward to vindicate her grievances, it cannot to brushed aside on the ground that her husband has tolerated her ravishment moresco when she has been able to face rigorous cross examination.

It is well settled in law that a conviction for offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is reliable, unimpeachable and there is no infirmity. In this context I may refer to a decision rendered in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubir Singh, , wherein the apex Court has observed as under:

There is no legal compulsion to look for corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspired confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate her veracity.

In view of the aforesaid cnnunciation of law and taking into consideration that the version of P. W. - 3 had reliability, the conclusion arrived by the learned trial Judge cannot be found fault with.

Now to the alternative submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.

The accused was conscious that the prosecutrix was the wife of his uncle. Giving a licence to one''s inferior propensities of salacious nature and entertaining the idea to have a sexual sortie is not the heart of a disciplined and law abiding society. While dealing with accused for commission of offence of rape it is to be borne in mind that the momentary pleasure of one causes devastating effect in another. Apart from the individual suffering the society as a whole, is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the milieu. The cry of the collective has to be answered and respected while imposing a sentence. On a conspectus of the entire tactual matrix and weighing the present crime in-its conceptual eventuality. I am of the considered view that the accused does not deserve lenient delineation.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.