Ram Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 15/17, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, by which Ram Singh, appellant has been convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months.

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on October 18, 1994, Usha Rani (PW9), alongwith her three daughters including prosecutrix Lalita was present in her parental home at Karnal, when at about 6.30 P.M., accused Ram Singh, who was earlier known to them, came there and enquired from them about the house of Kanta, wife of Dharam Pal; whereupon Usha Rani asked her daughter Lalita to take the accused to the house of Kanta. Thereafter, Lalita accompanied accused Ram Singh, but as she did not return even after sufficient time, a search was made but no clue as to her whereabouts could be found. After some time, Lachhman Dass, resident of New Bharat Nagar, Karnal, came alongwith complainant''s daughter, Lalita prosecutrix, who at that time was bleeding from her vagina, and he informed that the prosecutrix had been recovered from the garden owned by Pappu Chaudhari. The prosecutrix informed her mother, Usha Rani, PW., the accused Ram Singh had committed rape upon her. Thereafter, Usha Rani alongwith prosecutrix Lalita and Lachhman Dass proceeded towards police station to lodge the report, but on the way, a police party met them and Usha Rani got recorded her statement, Ex. PJ, before S.I. Hari Ram which formed the basis for recording of formal FIR Ex. PJ/1 at police station City Karnal under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code by SI Balwan Singh.

Hari Ram, Sub Inspector (PW12) moved an application, Exhibit PG, on October 19, 1994, to the Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Karnal, to get prosecutrix Lalita (PW8) medically examined. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Suvhita Ajmani, Senior Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Karnal (PW6). The Medical Officer also handed over to the Police Vaginal Swab alongwith envelope, one shirt, Exhibit P12, underwear, Exhibit P13 of the prosecutrix, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo, exhibit PL. The police also took into possession brick, Exhibit P14, smeared with blood, and the bloodstained earth, Ex. P15, vide recovery memo, Exhibit PM and PN respectively. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan, Ex. PO of the place of occurrence and got photographs, exhibit P4 to P7 of the place of occurrence, taken from Parminder Singh, photographer (PW4).

On October 20, 1994, SI Hari Ram (PW12) moved an application, Exhibit PA to Senior Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Karnal, to get prosecutrix Lalita examined for the purpose of determination of her age. Accordingly, she was examined by Dr. G.S. Arora, Radiologist, Government General Hospital, Karnal (PW1) who vide his report, exhibit PB opined the age of the prosecutrix between 8 to 10 years. On the same day, Sri Hari Ram moved another application, Exhibit PC, to the Senior Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Karnal, to get the prosecutrix examined for determination of her age by Dental Surgeon. On examination, Dr. V.K. Sharma, Senior Dental Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Karnal (PW2), vide his report, Ex. PC/1 opined the age of the prosecutrix to be less than 11 to 12 years.

On October 26, 1994, scaled site plan, Exhibit PE, was got drawn from Harminder Singh, Draughstman (PW5) by the police on the pointing out of Lalita, prosecutrix, and Lachhman Dass. On October 31, 1994, SI Hari Ram (PW12) moved an application, Exhibit PW, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, to get the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, her statement, Exhibit (PM/2, was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

On October 31, 1994, the accused was arrested and an application, Exhibit PD, was moved to the Medical officer, Karnal to get the accused medically examined. Dr. O.P. Arya, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Karnal vide MLR Ex. PD/1 opined that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was not capable of doing sexual intercourse.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined Dr. G.S. Arora (PW1), Dr. V.K. Sharma (PW2), Dr. O.P. Arya (PW3), Parminder SinghPhotographer (PW 4), Harminder Singh Draughtsman (PW5), Dr. (Mrs.) Suvhita Ajmani (PW6), Darshan Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate (PW 7), Lalita prosecutrix (PW 8), Usha mother of the prosecutrix Karnal (PW 9), SI Balwan Singh (PW10), Samey Singh, Assistant SubInspector (PW11), Hari Ram, Sub Inspector (PW 12), Jagir Singh, Constable (PW13), Rajpal, Constable (PW14) and Bhim Singh, Head Constable (PW15), Besides, reports, Ex. PQ and PQ/1 of the Forensic Science Laboratory were also tendered in evidence.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded his innocence and false implication at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix, who were on inimical terms with the accused. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.

I have heard Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gobind Dhanda, AAG, Haryana and have also gone through the record with their assistance.

Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the statement of the prosecutrix should not be believed because it was bereft of any corroboration; that the case against the accused was initiated as there was enmity between the accused and the family members of prosecutrix and that as there was no mark of injury on the body of prosecutrix Lalita, the question of accused having committed sexual inter course with her did not arise.

It has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Lalita, prosecutrix, was about 10 years old at the time of alleged occurrence. The prosecutrix herself appeared as PW8 and stated her age to be between 910 years. To the same effect, is the statement of Usha (PW9) mother of the prosecutrix. To corroborate the oral evidence, the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of Dr. G.S. Arora (PW1) who radiologically examined the prosecutrix and vide his report, Ex. PB, found her age to be between 8 years to 10 years. Dr. V.K. Sharma (PW2), Senior Dental Surgeon, also opined vide his report, Exhibit PC/1 that prosecutrix was less than 11 years and Dr. (Mrs.) Suvnhita Ajmani (PW6) gave the age of the prosecutrix to be 9 years. The cumulative effect of the evidence on record leaves no doubt that Lalita, prosecutrix (PW8) was about 10 years old at the time of alleged occurrence.

The next question that arises for consideration is whether or not in all cases, statement of the prosecutrix requires independent corroboration. In Dharwade Dhagnidhari Hirji v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under :

"In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault, in absence of corroboration, as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a maledominated society. We must analyse the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless crossexamination. And we must do so with a logical and not a opinionated eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the western world. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turnkey basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian society, and its profile. The identities of the two worlds are different. The solution of problems cannot, therefore, be identical."

Their Lordships, while analysing the social backwardness of our women, their subjugation to male superiority and their simplicity, declined to accept that an Indian girl will ordinarily make false allegations of sexual assault on her. The sum total of the ratio laid down in this authority is that when a simple rustic village woman alleges a sex offence having been committed upon her and even if that statement is not corroborated, the court can, in the circumstances of the case, convict the accused on the basis of that statement only.

Lalita, prosecutrix (PW8) gave the minutest account of the occurrence. She categorically stated that she was taken by Ram Singh, accused, in an orchard on the pretext that he would give her sweets; that on reaching there, the accused took her in a dilapidated kotha (chamber), where she was raped; that she became unconscious and blood came out from her vagina; that the accused left her all alone saying that he would come back with a sheet as she was feeling cold and that after some time one person came to her and brought her to the house of her maternal uncle. In her crossexamination, the prosecutrix stated as under :

"I do not remember the time when that person had left me at my house from the garden. I knew Ram Singh earlier. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused had not committed any sexual intercourse with me and I have deposed falsely at the instance of my parents."

A reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix would suggest that she had all along remained true to her version and did not budge even an inch from her consistent stand; which otherwise inspires confidence and in these circumstances this court is left with no doubt to believe even un corroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.

PW9 Usha, mother of the prosecutrix, categorically stated that accused Ram Singh had come to her house and enquired about the location of the house of one Kanta; whereupon she had deputed the prosecutrix to show the accused the house of Kanta and that thereafter, the prosecutrix was brought by Lachhman Dass. At that time, the prosecutrix was bleeding from her vagina. The matter was reported to the police at the earliest. The statement of Lalita, prosecutrix (PW8) and Usha (PW9) finds corroboration from the statement of Dr. (Mrs.) Suvhita Ajmani (PW6), who medically examined the prosecutrix and according to her, fresh oozing of blood was present in the vagina of the prosecutrix. The possibility of rape having been committed on the prosecutrix was not ruled out by the Medical Officer. The statement of the prosecutrix is further corroborated by the presence of stains of blood found on the shirt, Ex. P12, Kachhi (underwear) Ex. P.13, of the prosecutrix, brick, Exhibit P14 and bloodstained earth Exhibit P15 as also human semen on shirt, Exhibit P12, and Kachhi Exhibit P13.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused did not commit rape upon the prosecutrix because there were no marks of violence on the body of the prosecutrix, is devoid of any merit. It has been held by the apex Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1972 CAR 407 that absence of marks of violence on the person of the prosecutrix is immaterial as it may be due to sheer timidity, particularly when the prosecutrix is under 16 years of age. Lalita, prosecutrix, was less than 10 years of age at the time of incident and absence of marks of violence on her person would not make any dent in the case of the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellant finally contended that the sentence of the appellant, be reduced from 10 years to 5 years. In support of her argument, she relied upon State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and others, 1986(1) RCR (Crl.) 533 : 1996 CAR 88.

On the other hand, Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, contended that State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and others'' case (supra) was not applicable to the facts of this case as in that case, the occurrence had taken place 11 years ago and respondents were between 2124 years of age at the time when the offence was committed and in the present case, the age of the girl was less than 10 years, when she was raped by the accused and accused, who was a married man, was aged about 35 years at the time of occurrence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case in which the sentence of the appellant be reduced from 10 years to 5 years. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and others'' case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.