Bikramjit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Grover, J.—The Appellants have assailed judgment and order of sentence dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide which they have been convicted for having committed an offence u/s 376(2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the defaulter was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months.

On 26.11.1998, Devinder Kaur daughter of Jarnail Singh, resident of village Dehar, Tehsil Batala (hereinafter described as `the prosecutrix''), a student of 10+1 Class, was returning home at about 12.30 p.m. from the school. When she reached in front of the Haveli of Gurmej Singh alias Geja, some one called out to her by name. She stopped for a while and in the meantime, Amandeep Singh son of Gurdial Singh, put a handkerchief on her mouth, whereas Minta son of Piara Singh caught hold of her legs and both of them dragged her inside the Haveli of Gurmej Singh. She was taken to a room in the Haveli where Gurmej Singh and Bikka alias Bikramjit Singh son of Gurdial Singh were already present. Thereafter, all the four persons (Appellants herein) are said to have had sexual intercourse with her forcibly leaving her there after the act where she was discovered by Lakhbir Kaur, her father''s brother''s wife, who, subsequently accompanied the prosecutrix to give the version to the police on 28.11.1998, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded.

The investigation was conducted by Shri Darshanjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dera Baba Nanak and Shri Surinder Singh, Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Batala, who found that Kulbir Singh alias Minta, Gurmej Singh alias Geja and Amandeep Singh alias Aman were innocent. The challan was accordingly presented only against Bikramjit Singh alias Bikka and others were got discharged from the Court of Shri Harjinder Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala by filing an appropriate application.

The same Court committed the case qua Bikramjit Singh to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 18.2.1999.

The prosecutrix filed a criminal complaint against all the accused persons and the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Batala summoned them vide order dated 20.4.1999.

After the accused persons entered appearance, the complaint case was also committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 30.10.1999.

Both the cases were consolidated and were ordered to be tried together. The Appellants were accordingly charge-sheeted for having committed an offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) of the IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the Appellants, examined as many as 12 witnesses which included the medical evidence in the form of the statement of Dr. Raminder Kaur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and the report of the Chemical Examiner.

The Appellants, in their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., pleaded false implication, but did not choose to lead any evidence.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that there was no evidence to suggest the commission of offence as the medical evidence shows the absence of any injuries to the prosecutrix. Much was sought to be made from the opinion of the doctor wherein she has stated that two fingers could be admitted easily in the vagina from which it could be inferred that the prosecutrix was used to sexual inter-course. Purely on the strength of this, it was sought to be contended that the prosecutrix being habituated to sexual inter-course and in the absence of any injury to her, she was a consenting party. That apart, it was also contended that there was a delay of two days in the lodging of the FIR which was largely unexplained and the benefit of this unexplained delay should go to the Appellants.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State contended that there was no occasion for the prosecutrix to implicate the Appellants falsely and that she had been subjected to a brutal act by all the Appellants and simply because the injuries were not present on her person and that in the doctor''s opinion she was habituated to sexual inter-course would not imply consent.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not entirely correct. The doctor (PW-2) found multiple abrasions present on back of the neck, left upper arm and both knees of the prosecutrix implying use of force. PW-2 Dr. Raminder Kaur also stated that "on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PF, the same was sent to the Police Station along with her opinion that report from the Chemical Examiner, Patiala showed semen on both vaginal swabs, that rape had been conducted upon above said Devinder Kaur." The Chemical Examiner''s report clearly established the presence of semen on the exhibits sent to him. This coupled with the positive medical opinion proves beyond doubt that the rape had been committed. There is, thus, hardly any ambiguity regarding the fact that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual inter-course against her wishes.

The only question that is to be determined is, as to whether the Appellants have been falsely implicated as claimed by them or the statement of the prosecutrix coupled with the medical opinion is sufficient to establish their guilt or not.

The prosecutrix in the instant case is a young school going girl. She had no reason to implicate the Appellants falsely. A perusal of her statement reveals that she has come out with the truth in a forth-right manner. Even the delay has been satisfactorily explained by her. Besides, the police tried to scuttle the truth by exonerating three out of four accused persons, but the prosecutrix did not relent and succumb to the machinations of the police and rather, filed a complaint which only reveals her determination to bring the violators of her person to book.

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:

If a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trust-worthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclosed that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. We have, therefore, no doubts in our minds that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding, must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness.

In State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, 1996 (1) RCR 533 (SC), the Apex Court has held that if evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars.

In State of M.P. Vs. Dayal Sahu, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:

A plethora of decisions by this Court as referred to above would show that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the courts as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. It is also noticed that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Non-examination of doctor and non-production of doctor''s report would not be fatal to the prosecution case, if the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. It is also noticed that the court while acquitting the accused on benefit of doubt should be cautious to see that the doubt should be a reasonable doubt and it should not reverse the findings of the guilt on the basis of irrelevant circumstances or mere technicalities.

In State of Rajasthan Vs. Biram Lal, , a Division Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court accepted the appeal of the State and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Rajasthan so far as it related to the offence u/s 376 of the IPC. Some of the observations made by their Lordships are extracted below:

We, therefore, find it difficult to sustain the order of acquittal passed by the High Court in respect of the offence u/s 376 IPC. It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the court is satisfied that the evidence of the prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded. In appropriate cases, the court may look for corroboration from independent source or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction. In the instant case, we find that the evidence of the prosecutrix is worthy of credit and implicitly reliable. The other evidence adduced by the prosecution, in fact, provides the necessary corroboration, even if that was considered necessary. The High Court on a clear misreading of the evidence on record, acquitted the Respondent of the charge u/s 376 IPC while upholding his conviction u/s 450 IPC.

After carefully perusing the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that her evidence is inspiring enough and is sufficient to establish the guilt of the Appellants, especially in the absence of any motive to implicate them falsely.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is consequently dismissed.