Ratan Lal vs State

The appellant Ratan Lal stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 24.3.2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Act Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.47/2010:

Offence u/s

Sentences

Fine

Fine Default Sentence

366 I.P.C.

10 Years' R.I.

Rs.5000/-

6 months' S.I.

Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The prosecution case emanates from the written report (Ex.P/3) lodged by Shri Laxman Ram to the SHO, Police Station Badnor on 08.05.2010 at 11 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the very same evening at about 7 O'Clock, Ratan Lal took away his minor daughter Mst.A aged 4 years and subjected her to rape. The child had been admitted in the Badnor Hospital. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.37/2010 was registered at the Police Station Badnor for the offence under Sections 376 IPC and investigation was commenced. The minor victim was subjected to medical examination at the MG Hospital, Bhilwara from where, a report was received to the effect that the vagina and the anus of the child were severely damaged by trauma and had to be stitched and repaired. The child remained hospitalized for a period of 11 days. The statements of various witnesses who saw the accused taking away the child with him under the pretext of getting her an ice-cream were recorded. The accused who had absconded, could be apprehended as late as on 24.05.2010 vide arrest memo Ex.P-9-A. His medical examination was conducted. Certain recoveries were effected at his instance. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376 (2) (F) IPC. Since the offences were Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara from where, the same was transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Act Cases), Bhilwara. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(F) of the I.P.C. who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. Upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing the contentions advanced by the defence and the prosecution and after appreciating the entire material available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellant as above by the judgment dated 24.03.2015 and hence this appeal.

Mr.B.S.Charan, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case owing to prior enmity. He referred to the statement of P.W.7 Laxman being the father of the victim and urged that the witness admitted that previously, the accused had misbehaved with his sister Naina and thus as per Shri Charan, there was no possibility that the girl would be easily sent away with the accused to take ice-cream. He thus urged that ex-facie, the theory set up by the prosecution that the accused took the victim away under the pretext of giving her an ice-cream and then subjected her to rape, is unbelievable. Shri Charan further contended that as per the prosecution evidence, the accused Ratan himself dropped the victim back outside the house of the complainant. As per Shri Charan, in these circumstances and since the victim was bleeding heavily, the clothes of the accused were bound to have been stained with blood. As per him, the absence of the blood stains on the clothes of the accused when he was arrested, makes it clear that the entire case has been falsely foisted against the accused. He further drew the court's attention to the statements of two doctors viz. Dr. Kavita P.W.9 and Dr.Manish Pathak P.W.13, who subjected the victim to medical examination and urged that both the doctors admitted that injuries of the nature suffered by the victim could have been received if she fell on a pointed object. He thus urged that possibility of the child having received injuries by fall on a pointed object cannot be ruled out. Shri Charan further submitted that lack of injuries on the private parts of the accused when he was medically examined clearly rules out the possibility of him having subjected the child to rape and hence the accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the child witness Ms.Naina P.W.1 categorically stated that Ratanlal took away the victim Mst.A under the pretext of getting her an ice-cream. Thereafter, the accused dropped the victim back near her house and she was seen lying down in a pool of blood coming from her nether region. He further submitted that the victim Mst.A gave an affirmative statement to the effect that the accused took her away; stripped her, opened his clothes and fell down upon her as a result whereof, she got seriously hurt and started bleeding profusely lost consciousness thereafter. He further referred to the statement of P.W.5 Prakash, who also stated that he saw Ratanlal taking away the child on the pretext of getting her an ice-cream. Some time later, the child was seen lying outside the house in an unconscious state and was profusely bleeding. He further urged that testimony of these witnesses coupled with the evidence of the medical jurists is clinching and establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the accused committed the reprehensible and heinous act of brutal sexual assault on the tender child aged 4 years resulting into severe traumatic injuries which have left her scarred for life. He further urged that the accused absconded after the incident and could not be apprehended for more than 15 days, which also gives a strong indication about his culpable mental state. He urged that the prosecution has given clinching, cogent and convincing evidence for establishing the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt and hence as per him, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.

We have given out thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have threadbare sifted the evidence available on record.

We first proceed to deal with the submissions of the defence counsel that the accused was falsely implicated owing to prior enmity. The theory of prior enmity was buttressed by Shri Charan on the premise that an incident previously happened in which the accused misbehaved with Ms.Naina (P.W.1), the sister of the first informant and maternal aunt (Bhua) of the victim and thus, as per Shri Charan, there was no possibility that Ms.Naina would have allowed the accused to take away the victim for any reason whatsoever and would have raised an alarm. In this regard, we have examined the cross examination conducted from Naina P.W.1 who stated about the incident involving her molestation by Ratanlal which happened about four years before the present incident. Human memory is short and thus with the passage of 4 years, Ms.Naina (who herself was a child aged 9 years when the incident involving her and the accused took place) might not have given much credence to the fact that Ratanlal was offering ice-cream to the child and so as to make an attempt to thwart him. Otherwise also, Ms.Naina herself was a small child of 13 years and thus it could not be expected from her that she would be composed and mature enough to react and take such a decision as if she was an adult. Thus, failure of Ms.Naina P.W.1 to stop the accused from taking away the victim under the pretext of giving her an ice-cream cannot in any manner affect or taint the credibility of her testimony. In this background we are of the firm opinion that the theory of false implication owing to prior enmity putforth by Shri Charan for creating a doubt on veracity of evidence of the prosecution witness Ms. Naina is totally unconvincing and deserves to be rejected. We now proceed to consider the submission of Shri Charan that the victim might have received the injuries by falling on a pointed object. In this regard, we have carefully perused and evaluated statement of the victim herself and more particularly, the cross examination conducted from her by the defence. Not even a vague suggestion was given to the victim in cross-examination, that she fell on some pointed object and received injuries on her private parts thereby. Thus, this conjectural, flimsy and farfetched theory of contradiction with medical evidence advanced by Shri Charan for assailing the evidence of the minor victim is totally untenable. The minor victim aged 4 years categorically and affirmatively stated that the appellant took her away on the pretext of providing her an ice-cream. She positively identified the accused-appellant in the court as her assailant. She was taken away to a pond and was stripped. The accused took off his clothes and pounced upon her. She started bleeding severely. It is true that the child did not state specifically that the accused penetrated her sexually but her statement has to be evaluated keeping in view her tender age.

The girl categorically stated that the accused removed her and his own clothes, fell her down on the ground and forced himself on to her. This resulted into tearing apart of the nether regions of the victim viz. her vagina and her anal orifices and she started bleeding profusely. The accused himself carried the girl, who had fainted and dropped her near her father's house. People saw the accused bringing the girl and dropping her off while she was bleeding profusely. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that even if the minor girl did not, in so many words, state that the accused penetrated her private parts, that by itself does not absolve the accused from the charge under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. The fact regarding the accused having taken away the victim under the pretext of giving her an ice-cream; stripping her and his own clothes; pouncing upon her and bringing her back and dropping her off near her house in a profusely bleeding condition, is proved beyond all manner of doubt by cogent convincing evidence. In the backdrop of these facts and by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the incidents intervening these two events were exclusively in the knowledge of the accused, who was under an obligation to explain as to how the victim received these serious injuries on her private parts while she was in his control. All these circumstances coupled with the fact that the girl has given categoric evidence to the effect that the accused forced himself upon her after opening his and her clothes, is sufficient to satisfy the Court that the accused sexually assaulted and penetrated the victim resulting into grave and serious injuries to her private parts and anal orifices. Our findings are amply supported by the evidence of the two medical officers Dr.Kavita P.W.9 and Dr.Manish Pathak P.W.13, who have given clear and cogent evidence that they noticed brutal marks of penetration on the victim's nether regions when she was medically examined. The violence committed by the accused on the victim was of such an extreme, brutal and gruesome nature that victim's vaginal and anal orifices were torn apart. The doctors had to apply stitches to join the wounds. The contention advanced by Shri Charan that absence of injuries on the private parts of the accused and lack of blood stains on his clothes, is clearly indicative that he was not the assailant, is considered only to be rejected. As has been noted above, the accused absconded after the incident dated 8.5.2010 and could be apprehended as late as on 24.5.2010 (Ex.P/9A). Thus, definitely and undoubtedly, the injuries received by the accused if any, would have healed during this period. That apart, it is not absolutely inevitable that the offender invariably receive significant injuries while penetrating the private parts of a minor victim with his private parts. There is no conclusive opinion of medical experts to support this proposition. Abscondance of the accused for a period of 15 days from the incident also gives a clear indication about his culpable mental state. In this background, we are of the view that the lack of injuries on the private parts of the accused when he was arrested, is of no consequence whatsoever and does not adversely effect the veracity of the prosecution case. We are of the firm opinion that the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses viz. Laxmanram P.W.7, Naina P.W.1 and victim Mst.A P.W.4 herself is clinching, cogent and convincing so as to satisfy the Court that the accused herein, committed the brutal, heinous and reprehensible offences of kidnapping followed by penetrative sexual assault on the victim thereby tearing apart her nether regions including her vaginal as well as anal orifices. The defence theory of false implication owing to prior enmity is far too flimsy, farfetched and conjectural so as to be accepted.

In wake of discussion made herein above, we are of the view that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in a just and apropos manner while reaching to a finding of guilt against the accused appellant. The impugned judgment dated 24.3.2015 ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity whatsoever warranting interfere in this appeal. Hence the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Record be sent back forthwith to the trial court.