Jograj vs State of U.P.

G. S. N. Tripathi, J.—The then Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barailly, vide his judgment and order, dated 181978 passed in S. T. No. 50 of 1977, State v. Jograj, convicted the accused Jograj on a charge under Section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced him to two years'' R. I.

The prosecution case started on the basis of first information report dated 2781975. The allegations are that on that date at about 5 p. m., a little before sunset a lady Smt. Bhoop Dei has gone to the south of her house for throwing rubbish in the manure pit. She was ambushed by the accused. He committed rape upon her. She raised alarm. On hearing her alarm Nathoo, her husband and Pooranlal and Dal Chand came there and saw the accused committing rape. A report was registered in the same night at about 10 p.m. at Police Station Sishgarh, district Bareilly, after negotiating a distance of about three miles. The bloodstained peticoat of the lady was taken into custody by the police and after sealing the same memo was prepared. The crime was entered in the G.D.

The lady was referred to the Female Hospital, Bareilly, where she was medically examined on 2851975 at 10.30 a.m. The lady doctor found the prosecutrix major and pregnant for about six months. No mark of injury was seen on the private parts of the body but slight clotted blood was seen on the vulva and matted pubic hairs. The urethral opening was red, inflam ned and slightly torn (1 mm) posterior laterally and was covered with clotted blood but no fresh bleeding was seen either from the vagina cervix or urethra. The injury was about one day old. Hymen had old healed up tears. Vagina admitted two fingers easily.

The prosecution examined Srnt. Bhoop Dei (PW 1) and Pooran Lal apart from formal witnesses. Smt. Bhoop Dei (PW 1) has narrated the entire prosecution story as contained in the first information report. The accused raped her and he inserted the handle of the sickle inside her vagina. On the arrival of the witnesses he ran away with the sickle.

Pooran Lal (PW 2) has deposed that after hearing the alarm raised by Smt. Bhoop Dei, he rushed to the spot along with others. He challenged the accused and saw that Jograj was committing rape on Smt. Bhoop Dei and that Bhoop Dei bled prefusely and blood fell down on the ground.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly after appreciating the evidence and circumstances on the record concluded that the case had been fully proved to the hilt. He accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal has been filed. I have heard Sri Prabhu Kant at considerable length. I find that there is no substance in this appeal except that the modification in sentence due to lapse of time may be permitted.

The accused in his statement has said that there was enmity between the two families on account of some litigation. This allegation has been denied.

The lady was pregnant by about six months. Sho is a married lady, therefore, injuries on her private parts could not be found. However, there were circumstances which could lead to the inference that rape had been committed against her. Clotted blood was seen on the vulva, matted with pubic hair. The urethral opening was red, inflammed and slightly torn (1 mm) posterior laterally and was covered with clotted blood. The injury was about a day old according to the lady doctor. The prosecution evidence has supported the case of the lady victim that she had been raped befere, i.e. few hours prior to her medical examination. The first information report was lodged without delay, so there was no time to make out a cock and bull story and it can be used as corroborative piece of evidence. I have already held that there is no evidence or any prior deadly enmity between the two families, so the prosecutrix would not stake her own honour by falsely implicating the accused in such a case.

The learned lower court has observed that there was not even a whisper in the entire crossexamination that Smt. Bhoop Dei is a lady of loose morals, so she would not implicate any person including the accused in such a false case.

The rubbish pit was about fifty or sixty steps from the house of the complainant. It was on a lonely place. The accused, being, a young man could not control himself and utilised this opportunity to rape this lady. There is nothing unnatural in it.

It was urged that there were no marks on the back of the lady showing that she had been forcibly brought on the ground. Perhaps the learned counsel wanted to prove that this was a consented sexual intercourse, but the accused has denied his involvment in any such incident, in these circumstances the absence of injury on back of prosecutrix will not be of any help to the accused. Moreover the ladies are always well draped with Blouse, Petticoat and Sari. Learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting this imaginary argument to the learned counsel.

After a critical analysis of the record supported with a prompt first information report and equally corroborating medical report, 1 find that the solitary evidence of Smt. Bhoop Dei is sufficient tor conviction in this case. The statement of Pooran Lal has further cemented her version and has made it totally impragnable.

After a threadbare analysis I find that there is no force in this appeal. The order of conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is accordingly upheld.

Now coming to the sentence, learned counsel has urged that about twenty years are going to elapse and there is no evidence to show that the accused has not improved himself. Then a young man, the accused has now turned into a middle aged person. He has been repenting ever since.

In these circumstances I do not find it proper to send the accused to further imprisonment which he has suffered partly in between. Hence I find that ends of justice would be served if the seatence is reduced to the imprisonment upto the period already undergone by the accused. The appeal is substantially dismissed. The order of conviction recorded under Section 376, I. P. C. is upheld. However, the sentence is modified to this extent that the accused shall be released forthwith and he shall be deemed to have suffered the sentence for the period already undergone by him in lieu of the sentence ordered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The accused is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless required in some other case.