Ram Bhagat vs State of Haryana

Inderjit Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by appellant Ram Bhagat against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.1.2001/17.1.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby accused-appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC''). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 452 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 376 IPC. Both the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.11.1998, the prosecutrix along with her husband came to the Police Station and lodged report. She stated that for the last about two years she along with her husband Raj Kapoor and their children was residing in Village Butani as her husband had taken on rent the house of Arjan, where flour-mill was installed. On the intervening night of 3/4.11.1998, when her husband Raj Kapoor had already gone to Village Karera, District Shiv Puri in U.P. to meet his brother Kuldeep, the prosecutrix was sleeping in the flour-mill. At about 10.30 p.m., accused Ram Bhagat came after scaling the wall and placed his hand on her mouth. She got-up and identified the accused. The prosecutrix removed his hand and when she raised alarm, the accused put piece of `Parna'' into her mouth, her hands were tied with `Chunni'' and committed rape. When she resisted, the accused remarked that in case she made noise, he would insert `Danda'' and then he inserted `Danda'' into her vagina and committed rape with her. After that, the accused ran away from the spot with his `Parna''. On raising alarm, her neighbour Sumitra wife of Gurdev, Santro and Gurdev came there. As her husband was not present at the house, she went to her brothers-in-law at Panipat and due to shame, she did not tell anything to them. In the evening of 13.11.1998 husband of the complainant came. She narrated the entire incident to him. Then she came to the Police Station along with her husband and reported the matter to the Police. After that the prosecutrix was got medico-legally examined. The statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. He also produced `Danda'' and `Parna'' which were taken into Police possession. The accused was also got medico-legally examined. After necessary investigation, challan was presented.

On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused framed charges for the offences under Sections 452 and 376 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Raj Kumar, who did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. PW-2 Sulekha also did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. PW-3 Constable Dilbag Singh mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PC. PW-4 SI Med Singh mainly deposed regarding initial investigation. He collected bed head ticket of the prosecutrix and prepared report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. PW-5 Constable Subhash Chander deposed that the Police took into possession a `Parna'' and a `Danda'' from the accused vide memo Ex.PD. MHC handed over a sealed parcel to him. He deposited the same in the FSL with its seals intact. He also deposed that nobody tampered with its seals so long as it remained in his possession. PW-6 Dr. Paramjit Singh, PGIMS, Rohtak mainly deposed that the prosecutrix was produced by the Police. She did not suffer from anemia or jaundice. She was referred to a female doctor. PW-7 HC Laxmi Narain is a formal witness, who produced in evidence his affidavit Ex.PF. PW-8 Dr. Krishna Sangwan deposed regarding moving of application Ex.PG before her. She marked the same to Dr. Damyanti Sharma and Dr. Savita Singal for doing the needful. PW-9 Dr. Rosy Dhull, Registrar, Gynaecology Department, PGIMS, Rohtak, deposed that she along with Damyanti Sharma and Dr. Savita Singal conducted medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix. There was an old heeled tag about 1 inch on vaginal introitus anteriorly at 1 O''clock position. On physical examination, survical erosion was present. Slight bleeding through was present (spotting). PW-10 ASI Amar Singh mainly deposed regarding recording of FIR. Then SHO came and he handed over the investigation to him. He also deposed regarding arrest of the accused etc. and medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix. PW-11 Dr. M.K. Sabharwal, mainly deposed regarding medical examination of Ram Bhagat and stated that there is nothing to suggest that Ram Bhagat was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. PW-12 prosecutrix mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-13 Raj Kapoor is the husband of the prosecutrix. He also deposed that when he came back on 13.11.1998, his wife told all these facts to him. PW-14 Inspector Ram Mehar, SHO is the Investigating Officer and he deposed regarding investigation conducted by him in this case.

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. No defence evidence was examined.

After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as state above.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix. The persons Sumitra and Gurdev, who came on the spot as per prosecution version, were not examined. There is delay of about 10 days in recording the FIR which creates doubt in the prosecution version. He argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix is a married woman, who had levelled false allegations.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved and there is no reason or ground for the prosecutrix to level false allegations. The appellant has not deposed that the prosecutrix has any motive or enmity against him. It is further argued that the delay has already been explained by the prosecutrix. The oral statement of the prosecutrix has been duly corroborated by medical evidence and the FSL report. Therefore, he argued that there is no merit in this appeal and it should be dismissed.

I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State. From the evidence on record, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 3/4.11.1998 in the house of the prosecutrix. The appellant-accused came to the house after scaling over the wall. The husband of the prosecutrix had already gone to U.P., who came on 13.11.1998 and the matter was narrated to him by the prosecutrix. Then the matter was reported to the Police. It is in the FIR that out of shame, she did not disclose this fact to the brothers of her husband at Panipat, where she had gone after the occurrence. The delay has been duly explained by the prosecutrix and the version of the prosecution looks natural. Even otherwise, in such type of cases the delay, in no way, can be held as fatal. Therefore, on this account, no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case. Though the persons Sumitra and Gurdev etc., who reached the spot after the occurrence, have not been examined by the prosecution, but it will not create any doubt as there is no evidence that any of those persons had seen the appellant-accused there in the house and further they are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The prosecutrix has duly supported and corroborated the prosecution version. She deposed consistently as per prosecution version against the accused-appellant. There is no enmity or motive of the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused. Even the accused-appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. no where stated that as to why the prosecutrix was deposing falsely against him. In our society, no female levels such type of false allegation without any reason against any person and would put her reputation and the reputation of her family at stake. The statement of the prosecutrix has been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and the FSL report. Even the `Danda'' produced by the accused, which was stated to be put into the vagina of the prosecutrix, was having small stains of blood as per FSL report. It further supports and corroborates the version of the prosecutrix. I have perused the statement of the prosecutrix very cautiously and carefully. There was nothing in the cross-examination which may make her statement unreliable. She is truthful and trustworthy witness and her statement can be relied upon.

Therefore, from the above, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Further keeping in view the fact that the appellant inserted a `Danda'' into the vagina of the prosecutrix and such was his lust and all this was done to overpower her, I do not find any reason or ground to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court are upheld.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. The sentence of the appellant was suspended and he was released on bail vide order passed by this Court 23.7.2004. He is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law.