Harfe Ram vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sood, J.—The appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC'') to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case is that on 24.08.2008 at around 6.00 P.M. when the prosecutrix was in the verandah of her house, the accused went there and caught hold her from the waist, dragged her into the room and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The further case is that her house was situated in a lonely place and nobody could come for her rescue despite the fact that she was screaming "Bachao-Bachao". At around 6.30 P.M. the husband of complainant PW-2 Beli Ram, who was employed with the IPH Department, reached home and saw the accused standing in front of the door of the house and was wearing his trouser. He tried to catch the accused who slipped away from there. Whereafter the complainant narrated the entire episode to her husband. The husband of the prosecutrix came to the police station and lodged complaint Ex. PW-1/A on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW-7/A was registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined at the Regional Hospital, Kullu by PW-3 Dr. Sarita Sharma who opined that she was exposed to sexual intercourse. The accused was also medically examined by PW-4, Dr. Ranjeet Thakur who opined vide Ex. PW-4/A that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse.

The learned trial Court on the evidence on record convicted the appellant herein. Two witnesses, namely, the prosecutrix who appeared as PW-1 and the husband of the petitioner PW-2 form the core of the prosecution case which was corroborated by the medical evidence. Adverting to statement of PW-1, she stated in her examination-in-chief that she is the resident of village Dharli and has two children. Her husband PW-2 Beli Ram was working in I&PH Department as Fitter. On 24.8.2008 at a round 6.00 P.M. in the evening, she was present in the verandah of her house along with her four years daughter and mother-in-law who was mentally disturbed. She states that her house was situated in a lonely place. At around 6.00 P.M. the accused (whom she identified in Court) came there, caught hold of her from her waist and took her inside the room where he subjected her to forcibly sexual intercourse. She was thrown down on the floor whereafter he committed the crime. She states that she tried to free from his clutches, but she could not do so. She screamed "Bachao-Bachao", but nobody came for her rescue. At around 6.30 P.M., PW-2 Beli Ram came home at which point of time the accused was standing in the door of the room and wearing his clothes. Her husband tried to catch him but he (the accused) fled away from the scene of occurrence. She then narrated the entire incident to her husband, whereafter she proceeded to lodge report Ex. PW-1/A with the police and identified her signatures thereon. She corroborates the facts of her medically been examined by the doctor. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused. She admitted that the accused was known to her for about a year prior to the occurrence but denied that the wife of the accused and the prosecutrix are from the same family. She admitted that Rupi Devi, Ram Nath, Chole Ram and Bhag Chand were living in houses nearby their house, but then stated that they or their family members do not stay there. She admits that village Talpedi is situated at a distance of 150 meters from her house. She also denied the suggestion that when she was screaming, her voice could be heard in the vicinity. Her mother-in-law was present in the house and she also shouted. On suggestion that the husband of the prosecutrix borrowed 25,000/- rupees from the accused, she admitted the loan but denied that the accused had come to their house on a number of occasions to demand this money.

PW-2 Beli Ram states that he is working as a Fitter with the I&PH Department and on 24.8.2008, when he entered the verandah of his house at 6.15 P.M., he saw the accused wearing his pant in the room. He tried to stop him but the accused fled from there. His wife was present in the room and she narrated the entire incident that she has been subjected to rape. Thereafter on the next day, he instituted complaint Ex. PW-1/A before the Superintendent of Police, Kullu. He admitted that on 24.8.2008 was Sunday, but he had gone to his office to perform some work which was assigned to him. His mother was also present in the house at the time of the incident, but he states that she was mentally disturbed. He then says that when he was about to enter the room, he saw that his wife was lying on the floor and accused was wearing his underwear and pant. When he reached the door of the room, the accused fled from there.

PW-3 Dr. Sarita Sharma examined the complainant and opined that she was exposed to sexual intercourse, but final opinion was to be given after the chemical examiner''s report. After consulting this report, she again stated that the complainant was exposed to sexual intercourse. The probable duration of injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix was 24 to 48 hours. She had recorded these injuries in Medico Legal Certificate Ex. PW-3/B. On examination the following injuries were found:-

(a) Reddish blue bruise over left thigh laterally 12 cm below out iliac spine. Mild tenderness also present. Underlying bone clinically normal.

(b) Small abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm present over right knee joint laterally. No other mark of any injury over cut of body.

PW-4 Dr. Ranjeet Thakur opined that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse and there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of doing so.

It was urged before the learned trial Court that the mother-in-law and child of the prosecutrix who were present in the house were not examined. But this argument was rejected by the Court on the evidence of the prosecutrix and her husband as also that of PW-11 Inspector Bishan Dass who corroborated the fact that the child was only four years old and therefore was too young to testify in Court and the mother-in-law was mentally disturbed.

On the question of delay, the learned trial Court holds that it has been explained as the offence took place in the evening and the FIR was lodged on the next day. Learned trial Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tulshidas Kanolkar Vs. The State of Goa, and Sohan Singh and Another Vs. State of Bihar,

On the presence of the child and the mother-in-law at the place of occurrence and their non-examination, I do not find that this is fatal for the reasons supra. FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia but a brief narration of the facts of the commission of the crime. Non-mentioning of minor details is not fatal. On the question as to whether sole testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to convict the accused, all that I need say is that this is now well settled law in Aman Kumar and Another Vs. State of Haryana, Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of M.P., and Abbas Ahmad Choudhary Vs. State of Assam,

These authoritative pronouncements including Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasize the statement of the victim which should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. At this juncture, I may also note that PW-2 Beli Ram reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and in cross-examination stated that his wife had been laid down on the floor and the accused was wearing his underwear and pant. Corroboration, if any, which is required, is that of PW-2 Beli Ram. It has been urged before me by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the accused had gone to the house of the prosecutrix to collect his money which has been advanced to the husband of the prosecutrix and it is in this event that he has been falsely implicated in the crime and that PW-2 Beli Ram did not pay this amount. I cannot accept this contention for the reasons that despite the admission by the prosecutrix that money had been borrowed, does not establish the case that the accused has been falsely roped in. It does not stand to logic that both the prosecutrix and her husband who described the entire episode vividly were lying. On the delay, I do not find that the delay in lodging the FIR is fatal in the facts of this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.