Ranbir Singh vs State of Haryana

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The Appellants stands convicted under sections 376, 366 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for having kidnapped or abducted and committing rape upon Prabhawati (PW 2) during the night intervening 10th and 11th December, 1984 and also for causing injuries to her father Fateh Singh and brother Vijay Singh PWs 12 and 11, respectively. The crux of her statement which led to this conviction reads as under :

"At about midnight I got up to urinate outside chhapper. I heard noise of foot steps from behind. I saw Ranbir Singh covering himself with a blanket. I stood up and knotting my `nara''. I had not yet tied my `nara'' the accused Ranbir put blanket on me and caught me by my mouth and took me to the baithak belonging to his elder brother Raj Singh. He put me on the cot and removed his kachha and with the other hand he pressed my mouth. He removed my salwar with his foot as `nara'' was untied. The accused raped me against my will. I then raised alarm after removing his hand HAI MA. He then with force gagged my mouth with the blanket and bit me with his teeth. I again raised alarm with the pain of tooth bite. On hearing my cries my father Fateh Singh and brother Vijay Singh came there. They put on the light. The accused on hearing the noise of my father and brother put on his kachha and tried to run but my brother and father had reached at the door. The accused threw the blanket on the floor and picked up lathi and assaulted my father on his head and foot and also my brother on his head and after scaling over the wall and after picking up the blanket fled away."

This statement has been corroborated by Vijay Singh (PW 11) and Fateh Singh (PW 12) to the extent that they found Prabhawati present in the house of Raj Singh and when they tried to apprehend the accused appellant, he caused injuries to them with a lathi.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the evidence on record, I do not feel the necessity of adverting to the details of the matter at length as I am of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecutrix itself does not inspire confidence and cannot safely be relied upon. The very verso that as a matter of fact she was dragged from near her place to abode to a distance of more than 260 ft. (as per plan Ex. PJ) and she could not make any noise sounds preposterous. Further it is too much to believe that the petitioner appeared on the scene at that odd hour of the night and that too when she felt the urge and came out of her hut to urinate. Besides this, the well established proposition that it is very difficult, if not impossible, by an individual to commit rape upon a grown up healthy woman against her will, can also not be lightly ignored. If any authority to support this proposition is needed, then reference can be made to Partap Misra and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1307, with advantage. It is on record that Prabhawati was born on 8th August, 1967 (as per the birth certificate Exhibit PI) and was thus more than 17 yeas of age at the time of the occurrence. According to the evidence of the doctor, she was a young and healthy girl who was used to sexual intercourse and two fingers could easily be inserted in her vagina. As a matter of fact she was candid enough to admit in Court "I had the experience of intercourse with another person prior to this incident......." I had experience 34 times. I had met that man about 11/2 months......." Besides this there are factors which believe her version of force having been used against her. She stated that she was dragged from the place where she was urinating to the place of occurrence and during that process not only her chappals got off her feet but there were drag marks all along the route she had been dragged. Neither any injury of any sort was found on her feet by the doctor nor any pair of chappals was found by the Investigating Officer, who visited the spot the very next morning. As a matter of fact there was no injury which could indicate that any force had been used against her for the purpose of committing intercourse. No doubt the following injuries were found on the person of Prabhawati prosecutrix just after about 34 hours of the occurrence, when she was examined by Dr. Asha Kiran Butani (PW 7), but these appear to have been caused by her parents and brother who had actually surprised her when they entered in the house of Raj Singh, where the alleged occurrence had taken place :

"1. Contusion on skull lateral side 4 x 4", circular illdefined on left perietal bone and tempora bone reddish in colour, muscle deep, tenderness present.

Contusion on lateral side of skull left side 3" x 2" just below injury No. 1 circular, illdefined margins reddish muscle deep, tenderness present, Advised Xray skull A.P. and lateral for 1 and 2.

Contusion on left hand, below the left wrist joint above the little finger 11/2 x 11/2" circular, ill defined margins, reddish, tender, muscle deep. Advised Xray wrist joint (left) A.P. and lateral.

Small abrasion on left wrist joint 1/2" x 1/4", oblique, linear red in colour, superficial.

Small abrasion on lateral side of left forearm, linear vertically, 1/2" x 1/4" red in course, superficial.

Abrasion on lateral side of right thigh at junction of centre of thigh, 1/2" x 1/2", oblique, superficial, red in colour.

Abrasion horizontal linear, at junction of lower 1/3rd and upper 2/3rd, on medial side of left thigh, superficial, red in colour."

Otherwise it is not the prosecution case that she had been given any injuries by the accusedappellant. She of course stated that the accusedappellant had given tooth bite on her left cheek when she tried to raise the noise but again no injury or tooth mark as found by the doctor when she was subjected to medicolegal examination.

Besides the above, the following plea of the accused appellant under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot lightly be brushed aside as has been done by the trial Court :

"It is a false case. In fact I was not present at Bhadurgarh on the day of occurrence as I was on duty in 5th Etn. in Delhi Armed Police from 10.50 A.M. to 12.40 A.M. (till night) on the Jeep of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi having registration No. DED 2576 and then on 11.12.1984 I was on duty from 7.35 A.M. to 9.40 A.M. and with regard to these duties entries were duly made in the daily diary of the department in fact parents of Prabhawati had suspicion that she used to go to the house of my brother Bhup Singh during night and that on the night of occurrence when she was not found in the house of Fateh Singh, Ajit Singh, Vijay and Om Wati started going to the house of Bhup Singh but on the way Prabhawati was seen coming and accordingly she was abused by her mother. Thereafter the above persons started beating Prabhawati and on hearing this noise Bhup Singh managed to escape from the spot and when they could not catch hold of him they went to the old house of Bhup Singh and started pelting stones and brickbats at his house and womenfolk of the house of Bhup Singh also retaliating from the house of the accused and that when they did not desist from their act Raj Singh and Bhup Singh inflicted injuries upon them in their right of selfdefence, person and property, Apart from this Fateh Singh used to indulge in liquor in his house with bad characters and accordingly I had asked him to stop this business several times and also threatened to move the higher authorities in this regard. Beside this Fateh Singh had constructed a drain by encroaching a municipal land and accordingly I had filed application before the concerned authorities. Due to these circumstances my relations with the complainant party were not cordial and accordingly I have been involved falsely in this case."

The main outline of this version that the appellant was on duty at Delhi at the relevant time has been duly supported by DW 2 Shri A.A. Faruki, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and DW 1 Shri Dharambir Singh, Constable No. 4921, who produced the relevant entries from various registers. I find no reason to discard the statement of Mr. Faruki nor do I find any sound reason recorded by the trial Court in this regard.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it looks probable that the prosecutrix Smt. Prabhawati was a consenting party to the whole affair and she being above 16 years of age at the relevant time, no case can be said to have been established against the appellant. Similarly it cannot possibly be held that she did not willingly accompany the culprit, whosoever he was, and thus no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out either. (See State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 819). So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, it appears unimaginable that he would be in a position to cause injuries to Vijay Singh and Fateh Singh, PWs 11 and 12, respectively, at the time when he was surprised by them in the house of Raj Singh. So far as injuries to these witnesses were concerned, the plea of the appellant under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, appears to be more probable. It is the admitted case of the prosecution (ASI Amar Singh PW 13) that the brother of the appellant, namely Bhup Singh, Raj Singh and Rajinder Singh had separately been sent up for trial under sections 325 and 349 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to these PWs and others. That case concededly emanated from this very FIR.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this appeal and while setting aside the conviction of the appellant, acquit him of the charges framed against him. He is already on bail. The bail bonds are discharged.