Ram Lal vs State (U.T.Chandigarh)

A.P. Chowdhri, J.—This judgement will dispose of four Criminal Appeals Nos 9 SB, 18SB, 98 SB and 194SB of 1986 arising out of the judgement and order of the Additional Session Judge, Chandigarh, dated 17.12.1985 convicting and sentencing the appellants. Ram Lal (28) was convicted under Section 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and seven years and fine of Rs. 500/ on the two counts respectively. In default of payment of fine under the second count, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Vicky Singh (17) was convicted under section 376, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. Shekar (45) was convicted under Section 376/511, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 300/. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment. Smt. Narmata (10) was convicted under Section 376/511 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 300/. In default of payment of fine, she was further sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment. Out of fine, if realised, Rs. 1500/ were directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.

According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix Smt. Shanti PW7, aged 25, a married woman and mother of two children, came to Chandigarh on 31.3.1985 to see her cousin sister named Rani who was living in house No. 1281, Sector 18C, Chandigarh. This was her first visit to Chandigarh. She had come leaving her children at her mother''s house at Amritsar. She took cycle rickshaw and went to the aforesaid house in Sector 18C where some lady told her that her cousin had shifted to some house in the market of Sector 19 a week earlier. She went by the same cycle rickshaw to Sector 19 market where Ram Lal who is a meat seller met her and taking advantage to the simplicity of the girl he told her that he knew her cousin Rani and that he would take her to Rani. The prosecutrix believed Ram Lal and accompanied him in an autorickshaw. Ram Lal took her to house No. 17 in Sector 30. Vikram, who is an employee of Ram Lal, came there. At the instance of Ram Lal, Vikram brought half bottle of liquor which was consumed by both Ram Lal and Vikram. Thereafter, Ram Lal committed rape on Shanti, Ram Lal having given her a threat after slapping her that if she tried to raise alarm she would meet dire consequences. After Ram Lal, Vikarm also committed rape on the prosecutrix. Thereafter one person Guddu came there. The prosecutrix narrated her tale to woe. Guddu assured her that he would take her to his uncle''s house. At about 8 p.m. they left the place and met an old man who addressed as Dada by Guddu. Accordingly the old man left the prosecutrix at house No. 227, Sector 29 after getting recoded a writing from the old man Exhibit PW7/1. The writing is to the effect that the old man was leaving the prosecutrix in the care of Shekhar for the night. In that building besides Shekhar, Smt Narmata was also living. Narmata told Shekhar that prosecutrix was a woman of loose character and he should have sex with her. The prosecutrix was slapped by Narmata, whereafter Shekhar tried to commit rape with her at about 9.30 p.m. after bolting the room from inside. Shekhar paid no heed to the entreaties made by the prosecutrix that she was a married woman, implying that her life would be blasted if rape was committed on her. She managed to get herself freed and raised an alarm. Adjoining that building, where Shekhar had tried to commit rape with the prosecutrix, is an Inspection Bungalow Ordinance Cable Factory where Tara Chand Chowkidar PW4 was on duty. He heard the alarm. After some time his officer Charan Singh PW5 turned up and the Chowkidar narrated what he had heard. On advice from the officer, the Flying Squad of the police was informed. Inspector Gurnam Singh PW8 raided the house where Shekhar and Smt. Narmata were living and recovered the prosecutrix. Her statement Exhibit PJ was recorded by the Inspector on the basis of which the present case was registered. The police arrested Shekhar, Smt. Narmata, Ram Lal and Vikram later. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Ram Lal and Vikram were also medically examined.

At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Manjit Kaur PW1, who had examined the prosecutrix and Dr. S.K. Garg PW2 who examined both Ram Lal and Vikram accused and deposed that they were fit to perform sexual intercourse. Tara Chand Chowkidar PW 4 and Charan Singh PW5 appeared and supported the prosecution that they had informed the Flying Squad. Head Constable Balkar Singh PW6 deposed on the basis of DDR report Exhibit PH having recorded the telephonic message to call the Flying Squad. The prosecutrix appeared as PW7 and fully supported the above version. SI Gurnam Singh who investigated the case, was examined as PW8.

The plea of the accused was one of denial and false implication. The accused produced no defence.

On an evaluation of the evidence, the learned trial Court accepted the testimony of the prosecutrix and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence these Crl. Appeals Nos. 9SB, 18 SB, 98SB and 194SB filed by Ram Lal, Shekhar, Smt. Narmata and Vikram respectively.

I have gone through the material evidence on record with Shri G.S. Punia, learned counsel for the appellants.

The main contention of Shri Punia is that the statement of the prosecutrix did not deserve acceptance. In support of this contention, learned counsel argued that it was highly improbable that the prosecutrix agreed to go away with Ram Lal in a scooter rickshaw. It was further improbable that when Ram Lal opened the lock of house No. 17 in Sector 30, even then the prosecutrix did not suspect his intention. Learned counsel also referred to further conduct of the prosecutrix that even after she had been subjected to rape by two of the accused, she agreed to go away with an equal stranger Guddu and expose herself to an attempt to rape by Shekhar.

I have given my anxious consideration to the above contention of the learned counsel.

A careful reading of the statement of the prosecutrix PW7 shows that she is a simple lady of credulous nature. The prosecutrix belongs to Sangrur and had gone to Amritsar to the house of her mother in connection with marriage of her sister. In the meanwhile she paid a visit to Chd. and collected the address of her cousin sister from Jalandhar route. The life and style in Chandigarh is certainly different from the other cities of this part of the country. It is quite consistent with the probabilities of the case that the prosecutrix believed Ram Lal when he told her that he knew her cousin Rani and would take her to Rani. Having thus gone with Ram Lal, she raised alarm at the earliest opportunity when she made herself free from Shekhar. In between she placed reliance on Guddu who appears to have behaved nicely with the prosecutrix. There is a ring of truth in the statement of the prosecutrix and I have not been shown any reason to differ from the evaluation of her testimony made by the trial Court. Once the statement of the prosecutrix is found reliable, absence of mark of injury on her person will not be any infirmity in the prosecution case. Admittedly she is a married lady having two children and she was given a threat that if she raised a noise she would meet dire consequence.

I was next contended by Shri Punia that the Investigation Officer did not recover bloodstained bed sheet or the under garments of Ram Lal and Vikarm who were not stated to have washed their private parts after the rape. There was a considerable time gap between the rape committed in Sector 30 by Ram Lal and Vikram and visit of the SubInspector Gurnam Singh to the said house. The gap was of about five to six hours. It cannot be expected that the accused would leave telltale evidence of their crime for the police to come and recover the same. The nonrecovery of bloodstained bed sheet etc, is, therefore, no infirmity in the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances thereof.

Lastly, the learned counsel, submitted that the prosecution had withheld material evidence. In this connection he mentioned Rani, landlord of the house in which Rani previously resided and Guddu. It is settled law that the prosecution is required to produce evidence which is necessary for infolding the prosecution case. Viewed from this angle, neither Rani nor the landlord of the house in which she resided nor husband of the prosecutrix were essential and, therefore, their nonexamination is no infirmity in the prosecution case. The non examination of Guddu is easy to understand. Guddu appears to be a brother of Vikarm and son of Smt. Narmata. Shekhar also appears to be related to them. He could not be expected to be examined by the prosecution. In any case, his evidence is not material and the entire prosecution version has been given by the prosecutrix herself. The statement of the prosecutrix is inherently believable. It is corroborated by the material circumstance of a call by a totally independent source and recovery of the prosecutrix by the police in raid. There was absolutely no reason for the prosecutrix to have falsely implicated any of the accused.

After careful consideration and for the foregoing reasons, find no merit in the appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. The appellants who are on bail, shall surrender to their custody to undergo the remaining sentence awarded to them by the trial Court. In case they fail to surrender, they shall be got arrested to serve out the remaining sentence.