AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is at the instance of the appellantsÂaccused, who have been convicted for
having committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Penal Code'). The appellants have been
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rupees Two Thousand each, in default to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months.
The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrixÂ'R' was married with one Gulab and she had a son and a daughter from that marriage. As
her husband had contracted a second marriage, 'R' was residing with her father and brother in the field of one Sukhdeo Raut. She was working in that
field and was acquainted with persons of village Dongar Yawali. The accused were hailing from the same village and 'R' was also acquainted with
them. According to the prosecution, on 04.05.1996, at about 9.00 p.m., when 'R' was going from the field to the house of Sukhdeo Raut, she
observed that accused no.3ÂKisan Vighe was driving an autorickshaw in which accused no.1ÂSahebrao Gudadhe, accused no.2ÂManohar Thakare
and accused no.4ÂBalya @ Ramesh Bhende were sitting. On being asked by the accused as to where she was going, 'R' replied that she was
going to the house of Sukhdeo Raut. Accused no.1 thereafter got down from the autorickshaw and by pressing her mouth put her in the
autorickshaw. The other accused held her and hence 'R' was not able to rescue herself. She was taken to an agricultural field under a mango
tree. Accused no.1 removed her saree and spread it on the ground after which accused no.4 caught her one hand while accused no.3 caught her
other hand. Thereafter, all the accused committed rape on her. 'R' could not free herself because of the force used by the accused. She was
threatened that if she disclosed the incident, she would be killed. 'R' thereafter put on her saree and blouse and the accused left her near the
village. In the same condition, she went to the house of Sukhdeo Raut and disclosed the incident to him. Sukhdeo Raut asked her to stay at his
house and told her to submit the report on the next day. Accordingly, she approached the concerned Police Station on 05.05.1996 and lodged the
report at about 1.40 p.m. The crime was accordingly registered and necessary investigation was undertaken. Further, accused nos.1 to 3 were
arrested on 05.05.1996 and were referred for medical examination. On 09.05.1996, accused no.4 was arrested and he was referred for medical
examination. After completing the investigation, chargeÂsheet came to be filed. The accused did not plead guilty and were accordingly tried.Â
At the conclusion of the trial, the accused came to be convicted in the manner stated hereinabove by the judgment dated 29.07.2002. The accused
were however acquitted of having committed offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and under Section 3(1)
(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved, the accused have challenged their
conviction.
Shri Sumit Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the evidence on record was not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. There were various inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution. The field where the prosecutrix was staying
was owned by Sukhdeo Raut who was on inimical terms with the accused and therefore, at his instance, they had been implicated. It was submitted
that the medical report of 'R' did not indicate any injuries on her private parts and therefore, the story of the prosecution that the act of rape was
committed by all the accused was not probable. There was also a delay in lodging the report inasmuch as, the alleged incident occurred at 9.00 p.m.
on 04.05.1996 while the report was lodged at about 1.40 p.m. on 05.05.1996. The seizure of the saree has not been duly proved nor was it identified
by the prosecutrix. The report of the Chemical Analyzer also did not contain any material that would connect the accused with the crime in
question. Though it was the case of the prosecution that 'R' was taken in the autorickshaw and had passed through the village, 'R' did not shout for
any help which rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. The version of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and when that version is
considered along with the evidence on record, it could not be said that a case for conviction of the appellants had been made out. The learned
counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Banti alias Balvinder Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh [1992 Cr.L.J. 715] and Sampad alias
Srustidhar Mallick & another Versus State [2001 Cr.L.J. 793].
Shri Shyam Bissa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the judgment of the trial Court. According to him, there was no
reason for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused considering the nature of allegations. Mere absence of injuries on her private parts would
not make the case of the prosecution doubtful especially when according to the Medical Officer, the prosecutrix being married was habituated to
sexual intercourse. The report of the Chemical Analyzer clearly indicates the involvement of the accused inasmuch as, the samples of the semen
collected by the prosecution matched the semen stains found on the saree of the prosecutrix. It was thus submitted that the trial Court rightly
convicted the accused in the light of the evidence on record.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance I have perused the records of the case. The prosecutrixÂ'R'
has been examined at Exhibit 29. She deposed about the manner in which the accused had forcibly taken her from the field where she was working
to the place where the alleged act was committed. She has stated that all the accused committed sexual intercourse without her consent. She has
stated that after the incident, she put on her saree and was left by the accused near Dongar Yawali after which they went away. She has further
deposed that she had narrated the incident to Sukhdeo Raut who had told her that the report should be lodged on the next day. In her crossÂ‐
examination, she has denied the suggestion that the accused used to come to the field of Sukhdeo Raut for daily work. In her crossexamination, it
was suggested to her that there was darkness in the autorickshaw and that there were orange gardens on both sides of the spot where she was
restrained. It is then suggested to her that the field where she was taken by the accused was ploughed and that the accused had forcibly pulled her
towards the spot. She admitted that she did not have any injuries on her person except pains in her private parts. She had denied the suggestion
that on the day of the incident, there was a quarrel between the accused persons and Sukhdeo and that the report was submitted at his behest. She
denied the suggestion that she had lodged the report along with Sukhdeo.
The prosecution has examined Sukhdeo Raut as PW4 at Exhibit 41. He has stated that 'R' was working at his field and that she had come to his
house around midnight on the said date. On enquiry with her, she disclosed the incident to him. He has deposed that he asked the prosecutrix to
stay at his house and submit the report on the next day. On the next morning, 'R' went to the field. In his crossÂexamination, this witness has
denied various suggestions put forth by the defence. He has denied the suggestion that there was quarrel with the accused on the morning of the
incident. He has also denied that 'R' had gone with him on his motorcycle to submit the report.
The other witnesses examined are with regard to the seizures effected by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has been examined as
PW6 at Exhibit 46. He has denied that there was any overwriting in the report prepared by him. The report of the Chemical Analyzer is at
Exhibit 50. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code, the accused have simply denied the questions as put to them.
Insofar as the occurrence of the incident of rape is concerned, the same can be gathered from the deposition of PW1Â'R'. She has deposed in
clear terms that the accused committed sexual intercourse without her consent. In the crossÂexamination, it has in fact been suggested to her that
the accused had forcibly pulled her towards the spot of the incident which she admitted to be true. She was medically examined and the report of
the Medical Officer indicates that there were no external injuries on her body or on her private parts. There was pain on the right thigh with
abrasions thereon. It was opined that as the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, no definite opinion could be given. Absence of injuries
on the prosecutrix by itself would not be sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution as observed in Ram Singh Versus State of Himachal
Pradesh, [(2010) 2 SCC 445].
It is well settled that the deposition of the prosecutrix has to be considered as a deposition of an injured witness and same has to be viewed on that
basis. Unless there are compelling reasons, it would not be necessary to look for corroboration. The present is not found to be a case requiring
such corroboration.
 In the light of the evidence of 'R' along with the suggestions given by the accused of they forcibly pulling her towards the spot, the finding recorded
by the trial Court that the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Penal Code had been committed, deserves to be upheld. The presumption
under Section 114A of the Evidence Act, 1872 would thus come into play.
The conduct of the prosecutrix of immediately informing PW4ÂSukhdeo Raut about the incident and he directing the prosecutrix to lodge the report
on the next day has not been very seriously challenged in the crossÂexamination. The First Information Report indicates that the place of
occurrence is at a distance of about thirteen kilometers from the Police Station. The occurrence is at about 9.00 p.m. on 04.05.1996 and the report
has been lodged on the next day at about 1.40 p.m. Considering the distance between the place of occurrence, the house of Sukhdeo Raut and the
Police Station, it cannot be said that there is a delay in lodging the report by the prosecutrix which would render the case doubtful.
The version of the prosecutrix as to the involvement of the accused in the incident and she being subjected to rape at their instance is corroborated
by the report of the Chemical Analyzer. The report at Exhibit 50 indicates that the saree that was seized from the prosecutrix had semen stains.Â
The Blood Group of the prosecutrix is 'O'. The said report indicates that the semen stains on the said saree were of the Blood Groups 'A', 'B' and
'O'. The Blood Group of accused no.1 is 'O', that of accused no.3 is 'A' and the Blood Group of accused nos.2 and 4 is 'B'. It is thus obvious that
the saree that was found having semen stains of Blood Groups 'A', 'B' and 'O' has a definite nexus with the Blood Groups of the accused persons.Â
It is pertinent to note that this circumstance was put to all the accused persons in their examination under Section 313 of the Code and except denial,
there is no explanation whatsoever offered by them. This is a strong independent circumstance which strengthens the case of the prosecution.
Though it has been urged on behalf of the accused that the saree in question was seized on 05.05.1996 and it was sent for Chemical Analysis on
10.05.1996, that by itself would not be a circumstance in favour of the accused. Seizure of the saree has been undertaken by PW5 at Exhibit 42 and
except for suggestions with regard to the time of the seizure, there is nothing much in deposition of that witness that would doubt the case of the
prosecution. Similarly, according to the accused, they were implicated at the instance of Sukhdeo Raut as they had a dispute with him on the day of
the incident. Except suggestions in the crossÂexamination which have also been denied, there is no other material to substantiate that contention.Â
In the light of the fact that the accused were four in number and one of them had pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix as deposed by her, it was not
possible for her to attract the attention of other villagers. The prosecutrix has also stated that she was acquainted with the accused as they were
residing in the same village. Thus, their identity also stands established.
In the light of aforesaid material on record, it is found that the trial Court has appreciated the same in the proper perspective. The omissions
sought to be highlighted by the defence have been considered and found to be minor in nature. The presumption that arises under provisions of
Section 114ÂA of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been dislodged by the accused. Thus, on reÂappreciating the entire evidence on record, I
do not find any reason to hold that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts of the present case, the decisions
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants do not support his contentions. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the
appellants.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment dated 29.07.2002 in Sessions Case No.98 of 1997 stands confirmed. The
appellants who are on bail, are granted time of eight weeks to surrender and serve the sentence imposed on them.