Javed vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1995, passed by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who convicted the appellant Javed alias Jahid u/s 376, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years. The appellant was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/; in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo R.I. for one month. It was further ordered by the trial court that out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 1,000/ shall be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation.

The brief facts of the case are that on 14.4.1992, at about 12 Noon, complainant Parvina aged about 11/12 years, lodged a report with the police stating that her parents were residing in a rented house in Village Choma. On that date, at about 8 AM, her mother Hasina and father Kallu had left the house for doing the work. Her younger sister Samina and brother Dilsad had gone out of the house to attend a feast. Appellant Javed was a relative of their neighbour; her mother had left him in the house for ironing the clothes. She was lying on the cot. When she was asleep, appellant Javed caught hold of her hands and tied them with a rope. She woke up and asked Jave as to what he was doing. Javed asked her to keep quiet. He tied her both hands and put a cloth in her mouth. He opened her salwar. He also applied mustard oil at her vagina. After removing her clothes, he raped her. She became unconscious. After she became conscious, she found that the room was closed. She started crying upon which a lady from the neighbourhood reached there after opening the door from outside. She told that she was raped by Javed. In the meantime, her brother and sister also reached there after attending the feast. She asked her sister Samina to call her mother. Her mother reached there and she narrated the whole story to her. A case u/s 376, IPC, was registered and the accused was arrested. After the completion of the investigation, he was challaned to face trial. The case was committed to the court of Sessions at Gurgaon vide order dated 12.8.1992, passed by the Addl. C.J.M., Gurgaon.

Accused was chargesheeted u/s 376, IPC, vide order dated 21.2.1994. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Suresh Sharma, PW1, Dr. R.K. Marwaha, PW2, Parvina, Prosecutrix, PW3, Hasina, PW4, Dr. Rajni Prashar, PW5, SI Ishwar Singh, PW6, Pyare Lal, PW7 and Mool Chand Punia, PW8.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. Accused denied those circumstances and his plea was that he has been falsely implicated. It was also pleaded by Javed that economic condition of Kallu, father of Parvina, prosecutrix, was very weak and he had asked him to give a loan of Rs. 200/. He refused to oblige him and because of that reason he has been falsely implicated in this case.

In defence, the appellant did not lead any evidence and closed the case.

The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. T.S. Sangha, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shailender Singh, DAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

Prosecutirix Parvina was a girl of 11/12 years of age at the time of the incident. She has corroborated her allegations. According to her on the date of occurrence at about 9 AM when she was asleep on a cot in her house and was alone, appellant came there. He was ironing the clothes in the same room where she was asleep. He bolted the door of the room from inside. He tied her hands with a rope behind her back. It has further been stated by Parvina that the appellant removed her salwar after opening its string. He applied some oil to his penis after taking the same out of a can and he committed rape upon her. It has also been stated by the prosecutrix that the accused also gagged her mouth by putting a piece of cloth in her mouth and on account of rape, she became unconscious. It has further come in the statement of the prosecutrix that the appellant went away from there telling her that she should not disclose this incident to anybody. The statement of the prosecutrix has also been corroborated by Hasina, mother of the prosecutrix, who deposed that her daughter narrated the entire occurrence to her. It has further come in the statement of Hasina that her daughter Parvina was bleeding from her vagina and that the prosecutirx told her that Javed, appellant, had tied her hands, gagged her mouth, applied oil to his penis and, thereafter, committed rape after removing her Salwar. The statements of Parvina, PW3, prosecutrix, and Hasina, PW4, are further corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Rajni Prashar, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 14.4.1992. According to this witness, the proscutrix was bleeding from her vagina. Her hymen was ruptured and there were lots of blood clots in the vagina.

There is no infirmity committed by the trial court in believing the statement of the prosecutrix whose statement finds corroboration not only from the statement of he mother but also from the medical evidence. The statement of the prosecutrix is like the statement of an injured witness. There was no cogent defence led by the appellant before the trial court from which any reasonable inference can be drawn that the prosecutrix was telling a false story. The law has now even gone to the extent that it is not necessary for the law courts to always look for corroboration but in the present case the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. She has no axe to grind against the appellant. The defence taken up by the appellant is not only absurd but also full of improbabilities. Thus, I maintain the conviction of the appellant u/s 376, IPC.

The learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that in the matter of sentence, the appellant may be visited with leniency as the prosecutrix has already married herself. I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would suffice if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced from 10 years to seven years. JUDGMENTed accordingly.

With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Let the intimation about the reduction of the sentence of the appellant be sent to the C.J.M. concerned, who shall make every endeavour for the arrest of the appellant, if he is not in custody so that the appellant may be able to serve his remaining sentence.