Sat Pal vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is an appeal against the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1,000/ each and in default of suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his judgment dated 30.3.1995. The two appellants, Sat Pal and Pala were tried in Court of Shri D.S. Chatha, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. 55/3071992, Sessions Trial No. 26/3.2.1993, on the charges punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 506, read with Section 34 IPC.

Case of the prosecution unfolded at the trial is as under:

Smt. Pritam Kaur (PW 1), wife of Bant Singh (PW 4) left her house situated in village Samrao Pati Chhajli, within the limits of police station Sunam, District Sangrur on 15.12.1991 with her two minor children, one year old son and a daughter aged around 21/2 year, to visit her sister''s house in village Namol. Smt. Pritam Kaur learnt on reaching the bus stand of Sunam that the bus leaving for the village Namol had already left. Pritam Kaur, thus, waited at the bus stand with her two aforesaid children. The appellants, Saptal son of Leela Ram, aged 25 years, agriculturist by profession, who resided in the village Chhajli and Pala, son of Amarjit Singh, aged around 21/22 years old, also agriculturist by profession and resident of village Chhajli, approached Pritam Kaur and enquired from her as to where she was planning to go. Smt Pritam Kaur who knew the covillagers, the appellants, Sat Pal and Pala, told them that she was going to visit her sister Malkiat Kaur in Village Namol. Thereupon, the appellants told Pritam Kaur that they were also going to village Namol and told her that they could escort her. Smt. Pritam Kaur, consequently, agreed to accompany the appellants and left with them for her destination, i.e. village Namol. The appellants after the sunset, led Smt. Pritam Kaur to a motorwalakotha, near the canal of village Neelowal and there she was raped by the appellants on a cot, lying in the verandah of the kotha. During the commission of rape, committed by the appellant turn by turn, she raised hue and cry and saw a police vehicle passing near the verandah, but the vehicle did not stop. After committing rape, both the appellants ran way from the place of occurrence, leaving behind Pritam Kaur (PW 1) and her two children there at the verandah.

Smt. Pritam Kaur returned to her village. Her husband, Bant Singh, was not present at the house. Bant Singh returned home after about 23 days when she narrated the incident of rape to him. Bant Singh informed about this incident to his brother, Roop Singh and then she was taken to the civil hospital, Sunam, where she was got medically examined from Dr. Saveeta Bansal. The medical examination of Smt. Pritam Kaur was conducted by Dr. Saveeta Bansal at the village hospital at Sunam on 19.12.1991 at about 3.30 p.m. She was escorted by Roop Singh, elder brother of her husband, Bant Singh. On external examination, the medical officer did not find any injury mark visible on face, breasts, abdomen, thighs or external genitals. On her vaginal examination, the uterus was found fixed and of normal size. The vagina was found roomy and admitted two fingers. No bleeding was present and no injury mark was seen. Vaginal swab was taken alongwith the salwar, brought by Pritam Kaur, which she was allegedly wearing at the time of commission of rape. These items were duly sealed and sent to the police for further action. Smt. Pritam Kaur told the medical officer Dr. Seaveeta Bansal that she had been raped on 15.12.1991, which happened to be Sunday. Medical examination report was duly sent to the police.

The appellants, Sat Pal and Pala, were also medically examined on 23.12.1991. Their medical examination showed that there was nothing to suggest that they could not perform sexual intercourse. The medicolegal reports were prepared and sent to the police. The appellants visited the house of the prosecutrix and they offered for a compromise to the husband, Bant Singh. The offer of compromise was, however, declined Smt. Pritam Kaur accompanied by her brotherinlaw, Roop Singh, was going to the police station for lodging the report with the police, when the police met them at the bus stand of village Chhajli and the statement of the prosecutrix, Pritam Kaur, was recorded by the police, which was read over to her and her thumb impression was obtained an her statement (Exhibit PA) in token of its correctness. She also identified the place of occurrence and at her instance the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan (Exhibit PC). The statement (Exhibit PA) of Pritam Kaur was duly endorsed (Exhibit PA/1) by SI Gurmukh Singh, the Investigating Officer and sent the same to Constable Amrik Singh for registration of the case. First Information (Exhibit PA/2) was recorded on the statement (Exhibit PA) by MHC Pavittar Singh.

The Investigating Officer at the time of spot inspection, took into police possession the cot from the place of occurrence and prepared the recovery memo. (Exhibit PB), which was duly attested by the prosecutrix, Pritam Kaur, and her brotherinlaw, Roop Singh. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of other witnesses and while returning to the police station, Sunam, Ajaib Singh, member panchayat met him, who produced the accused/appellants before him and they were duly arrested. The Investigating Officer took personal search of the accused/appellants vide search memo Exhibit PD. HC Pavittar Singh produced sealed parcel containing salwar of the prosecutrix at the police station. Another parcel contained pubic hair of the prosecutrix. The two parcels were sealed with the seal impression of ''SB''. These parcels were taken into police possession vide recovery memo, Exhibit PE, which was duly attested by HC Pavittar Singh, whose statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer. The statement of Ajaib Singh aforesaid was also recorded. The statement of Bant Singh, husband of the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur was recorded on 23.12.1991. Statement of another witness, Bant Singh son of Phuman Singh was also recorded. The Investigating Officer recorded the supplementary statements of MHC Pavittar Singh, Constable Gurchain Singh and Jasmer Singh, ward attendant on 16.1.1992. After completion of investigating, challan report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by SI Baldev Singh/SHO of Police Station, Sunam.

The cases of the accused Sat Pal and Pala were committed to the Court of Sessions by Shri S.K. Goel, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, vide order dated 5.6.1992. The Sessions Trial was entrusted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The proceedings under Sections 226 and 228 Cr.P.C. were conducted in the court of Shri Mehal Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 28.8.1992. After hearing the prosecution as also the counsel for the accused and perusal of the record of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge sheet under Section 376 IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused, Sat Pal and Pala. The charges were duly read over to them and explained in Punjabi and their pleas were separately recorded. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

At the trial, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix, Pritam Kaur, PW 1; Rup Singh, PW 2; SI Gurmukh Singh PW 3; Bant Singh son of Phuman Singh, husband of the prosecutrix as PW 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State gave up the witnesses Ajaib Singh, Bant Singh son of Darbara Singh, having been over by the accused, as per application of the complainant. SI Baldev Singh was given up as unnecessary. Affidavit of HC Pavittar Singh (Exhibit PY), report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit PX) and affidavit PZ were tendered into evidence. The case of the prosecution was closed.

Statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused denied their involvement in the occurrence of rape. Sat Pal accused stated that the prosecution witnesses have deposed against him falsely. He was innocent and had been falsely implicated due to his enmity with Bant Singh and Rup Singh. Accused Pala also denied the prosecution evidence led against him regarding his involvement in the incident of rape. He stated that the prosecution witnesses deposed falsely against him. He was innocent and was falsely implicated due to inimical relations with Bant Singh and Roop Singh. The accused tendered in defence evidence the site plan (Exhibit DA) and closed their defence evidence.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and found the accused Sat Pal and Pala guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and they were convicted thereunder. After hearing the accused persons on the question of sentence, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Feeling aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the accused persons have filed this appeal.

The State/respondent was issued notice of the appeal and was represented by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Shri S.S. Randhawa. The appellants were duly represented by their counsel Shri G.S. Dhillon, Advocate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the evidence on the record as also the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge.

The learned counsel for the appellants confined his arguments on the following points :

(1) Inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report regarding the incident of rape;

(2) The evidence of the prosecutrix, Smt. Pritam Kaur, is wholly incredible, as she is a woman of loose character and easy virtue.

(3) There is no corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix, Pritam Kaur.

So far as the plea of delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the occurrence took place in 15.12.1991 and the FIR was lodged on 22.12.1991. There is, thus, gap of seven days between the date of occurrence and the date of lodging of the FIR. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Maghar Singh, real brother of Bant Singh, the husband of the prosecutrix, resided in the same house and is bachelor. Roop Singh, the elder brother of Bant Singh, husband of the prosecutrix also resided there with his family. Pritam Kaur (PW1) did not disclose about this occurrence to either Maghar Singh, Roop Singh or the ladies present in the house. But she kept quiet for 23 days and awaited the return of her husband, Bant Singh and told about the incident of rape to him. Even Bant Singh did not go to lodge the report and he told his elder brother, Roop Singh about this occurrence and with his consultation, Pritam Kaur was taken to the civil hospital, where she was medically examined by Dr. Saveeta Bansal on 19.12.1991 at 3.30 p.m., i.e. fourth day after the occurrence.

Pritam Kaur (PW 1) stated in her examinationinchief about her husband being out of station and coming back after 23 days when she narrated the incident to him. She stated that her husband narrated the incident to his brother, Roop Singh, when she was taken to the Civil hospital, Sunam. She stated that thereafter the accused came to meet her husband and talked for a compromise, but the offer was declined by her and her husband. According to her statement, she accompanied her brotherinlaw, Roop Singh, for going to the police station, Sunam, to lodge the report and it was no way near bus stand, Chhajli, that the police met her and her statement had been recorded there. She was crossexamined at length regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. She is an illiterate woman. The shows that she did not narrate this occurrence to any family, member, whether male or female, due to hesitation . She narrated the occurrence only to her husband on his return from outside. According to her statement, her husband had returned home in the noon time on the fourth day, i.e. on 19.12.1991, as the incident had taken place on 15.12.1991. She went to lodge the report after the return of her husband. Delay that occurred in informing the police about this incident, has been explained by the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur. Her statement appears to be quite natural and believable. The hesitation on the part of the Pritam Kaur in disclosing about her being raped by the accused persons to her family members excepting her husband, cannot be said to be unnatural, improbable or unbelievable. In such cases where the woman is sexually assaulted, there is usually reluctance on the part of the woman to disclose about the incident all and sundry and it takes time for her to come out of the traumatic experience. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has recently in the case of The State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, 1996(1) RCR 533 (SC) : JT 1996(1) SC 298, considered the point of delay in lodging the FIR and held that the courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences, delay in lodging the FIR could be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or the family members to approach the police and complaint about the incident, which concerns the reputation and honour of the family of the victim. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. In the case before the Apex Court, the father of the prosecutrix came to know from his wife about the incident of rape when he went to the village Sarpanch and complained. The Sarpanch of the village also got in touch with the sarpanch of village Pakhowal, where in a tubewell kotha, the incident of rape had taken place, was situated and an effort was made by the panches of the two villages to sit together and settle the matter. It was only when the peaches failed to provide any relief or render any justice to the prosecutrix that she and her family decided to report the matter to the police and before doing that, naturally the father and mother of the prosecutrix discussed whether or not to lodge the report with the police in view of the repercussion it might have on the reputation and future prospects of the marriage etc. of their daughter. In these facts and circumstances, the Apex Court held that there was no delay in lodging the FIR and if at all there was some delay, the same has not only been properly explained by the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances of the case was also natural.

In the instant case, the prosecutrix, Pritam Kaur, was subjected to gang rape by the appellants, who had promised to escort her safely to the house of her sister and instead she was deceived and taken to the verandah of the motorwalakotha, where she was subjected to rape. Pritam Kaur returned home after being sexually assaulted by the accused/appellants, covillagers and she found her husband absent from the house. The prosecutrix was hesitant in narrating this incident to her family members. She narrated the incident only to her husband when he returned home. This act of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be unreasonable or uncalled for. On the other hand, it is quite natural and believable that she would have waited for her husband to come home and then tell him about this occurrence. The husband on his return learnt about this incident and he consulted his elder brother Roop Singh and thereafter the prosecutrix was taken for medical examination to the civil hospital, Sunam. It is also noteworthy that the appellants, who are Brahmins by casts, approached the husband, Bant Singh, of the prosecutrix with the offer of compromise in the matter. It must have been after due deliberations that the prosecutrix and her husband as also his elder brother Roop Singh decided to reject the offer of compromise and took a decision to lodge the report with the police. Under these facts and circumstances the delay has been well explained and the same cannot be said to be unnatural and unreasonable. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR.

Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the authority reported of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Banti alias Bavinder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992(1) RCR 569, decided on September 3, 1991, wherein five days'' delay in lodging the FIR regarding the offence of rape was held fatal for the prosecution case.

Another authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is a Single Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Badal v. The State, 1987(2) RCR 346 , wherein the delay in lodging the FIR by 24 hours on the ground that the prosecutrix waited for her husband to come and neighbours were not informed and further on arrival of the husband, FIR was not lodged immediately, the prosecution story was held doubtful and the accused the acquitted.

Another authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants on the point of delay in lodging the FIR is in a case of Jit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) RCR 359 , wherein it was held that there was inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. The occurrence allegedly took place on December 26, 1979 at 11.00 a.m and the matter was reported to the police the same day at about 5.00 p.m. The medical examination took place on December 31, 1979. It was held it was not proved beyond reasonable doubts that the prosecutrix was raped and the delay was held to be fatal to the prosecution case.

However, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra), the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants have no relevance. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the delay in the lodging the FIR has, thus, no merit.

Coming to the other two points urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, it may be mentioned at the outset that the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on these two points are without any substance. It cannot be held that the story narrated by the prosecutrix is totally improbable. There is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that nobody would have allowed the prosecutrix to go alone in the village with her minor children to visit her sister. The argument that Pritam Kaur, the prosecutrix, was purchased by her husband, Bant Singh, and on some occasions she left the house of her husband, showed that she was a woman a loose character and of easy virtues, carries no conviction.

Smt. Pritam Kaur (PW1) is originally resident of the State of West Bengal. She come to reside with her elder sister, Malkiat Kaur, who was maried wiht Nihal Singh in village Namol. According to the statement of Pritam Kaur (PW 1), her marriage was arranged by her brotherinlaw, Nihal Singh, husband of her sister Malkiat Kaur. She had five children out of the wedlock. In her crossexamination, she stated that she was given the name Pritam Kaur after her marriage with Bant Singh. She further stated that her father, Kalu was alive and living in West Bengal and her mother had died, but mother''s sister, Gulabi, is alive. Kalu aforesaid is a farm labourer, working at Calcutta and residing in a village, known as BaroMare. The prosecutrix was brought to Punjab a month prior to the marriage. She has one younger sister, known as Amarjeet. She has two brothers named Dumbal and Pandu. Excepting her sister Malkiat Kaur, none of her relatives on the parental side has settled in Punjab. Malkiat Kaur was married through a middle man of village Nagri, whose name the prosecutrix did not know. She denied the suggestion that her sister Malkiat Kaur was purchased by Nihal Singh. She also denied the suggestion that she was sold to Bant Singh by her sister Malkiat Kaur. She also denied having stated before the police that the her sister Malkiat Kaur sold her for a sum of Rs. 3,500/ to Bant Singh about ten years ago. She was confronted with her statement (Exhibit PA) recorded by the police, mark ''A'' to ''AI''. She stated about her brotherinlaw Maghar Singh, living with her husband in the same house. She denied the suggestion that her husband Bant Singh was addicted to vices and took liquor, but she admitted that Maghar Singh used to consume liquor sometimes. She denied the suggestion that she was living as a wife of Maghar Singh.

learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of Roop Singh (PW 2), wherein he stated that it is correct that his brother Bant Singh had purchased Pritam Kaur when she was living with her sister. He also stated that the prosecutrix was given the name of Pritam Kaur by his family. He denied the suggestion that Pritam Kaur was of loose character and in the habit of leaving their house without any information and knowledge. According to his statement, Pritam Kaur left their house 23 months prior to 13.7.1994 when his statement was recorded in the trial court and returned after 23 days. He volunteered that it was the accused persons, who threatened her and she was to appear in the Court. He, however, admitted having reported to the police about Pritam Kaur going away from the house. No case was registered against the accused regarding the threats allegedly held by them.

Bant Singh (PW 4), husband of the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur stated in his crossexamination that he had not purchased Pritam Kaur for a sum of Rs. 3,500/. He stated that he could not explain how it appeared in his statement Exhibit DA. He also denied the suggestion that Pritam Kaur remained away from his house for months together without his permission. He stated that the accused persons had threatened his wife and she left for some unknown place and returned after four days.

It will appear from the statements of Pritam Kaur and her husband, Bant Singh, that the story about Pritam Kaur being purchased by Bant Singh was categorically denied by them, though the statement of Bant Singh recorded by the police contained the averment regarding Pritam Kaur being purchased. Only Roop Singh (PW 2) stated about Pritam Kaur having been purchased by Bant Singh. It may be mentioned that the question as to whether the prosecutrix, Pritam kaur, was purchased by Bant Singh or she was married with Bant Singh by her bortherinlaw, Nihal Singh, husband of her sister Malkiat Kaur, against a sum of Rs. 3,500/, accepted from Bant Singh, is of not much significance in the case. Even if it be believed for a moment that Bant Singh had paid some price for marrying Pritam Kaur, the same would not render Pritam Kaur as a woman of loose character and of easy virtues. None of the prosecution witnesses, i.e. Pritam Kaur, Roop Singh or Bant Singh stated about Parkash kaur running away from the house with someone and leading an immoral life. The accused/appellants had no concern regarding the way of life led by Pritam Kaur and the suggestion made on behalf of the accused persons to Pritam Kaur about living as wife of Maghar Singh, younger brother of her husband, Bant Singh only shows that the accused wanted to show that Pritam Kaur was leading an immoral life. However, the fact remains that Pritam Kaur specifically denied the suggestion that she was residing as wife of Maghar Singh.

Apart from this, Bant Singh would not have tolerated his wife having illicit relations with his brother, Maghar Singh. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has also considered this aspect of the prosecutrix in the aforesaid judgment of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra) and held that even in cases where there is some acceptable material on the record to show that the Pritam Kaur was habituated to sexual intercourse, no such inference like the victim being a girl of "loose moral character" is permissible to be drawn from that circumstance alone. Even if the prosecutrix, in a given case, has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. No stigma, like the one as cast in the present case should be cast against such a witness by the Courts, for after all it is the accused and not the victim of sex crime who is on trial in the Court.

The aforesaid view of the Hon''ble Supreme Court amply shows that the accused/appellants had no licence to force themselves upon the prosecutrix and have forcible sexual intercourse with her against her consent and desire. Even if the prosecutrix has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier she has a right to refuse to submit herself to anyone and everyone, as she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone, as held by the Apex Court.

After carefully perusing the statement of the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur, I find that she has given a cogent, natural and truthful version of the occurrence and her statement cannot be discarded on such pleas that it is improbable that she would leave her house all alone with her minor children in the evening to visit her sister. Ours is a civilized society in which the movement of a woman with her children cannot be said to be improbable or that there is any bar on her movements. There is nothing unnatural in the prosecutrix going to meet her real elder sister with whom she had resided prior to her marriage and if she missed the bus at Sunam and was brought by the accused/appellants, who were residents of the same village and known to her and who offered to escort her safety to her sister''s house, her conduct in accompanying them cannot be criticised, as being improbable or unnatural. It is significant to note that the prosecutrix, Pritam Kaur, was raped by the accused persons turn by turn and under the threat to the life of her minor children, who were being held by one of the accused when the other committed rape upon her. This explains the fact that the prosecutrix under the fear of danger to the lives of her minor children at the hands of the accused, submitted to the lust of the accused persons. Merely because there is absence of injuries on the external as well as internal part of her body, the prosecutrix cannot be held to have given her consent freely to have sexual intercourse with the accused persons. Besides, this occurrence has taken place in the winter month of the December. After the sunset, in the verandah of the motorwalakotha, situated in a lonely place, as would appear from the perusal of the site plan (Exhibit DA), normally no one could have come there. The prosecutrix has made a categorical statement about her being raped by the accused persons against her will. In her examinationinchief, she stated that the accused ravished her against her will and against her consent. In her crossexamination, the trial Court put specific questions regarding the two accused committing rape upon the her and recorded her answers, which are as under :

"Court Question : Did you resist the accused from committing rape ?

Answer : I asked them as to why they are raping me forcibly, I could not raise cry as they threatened to kill me and there was none to listen to me.

Court Question: Did you ask or resist Pala Singh from doing so ?

Answer : I resisted accused Pala but he threatened to kill me and my children."

She was confronted with her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer regarding the nonmentioning of the fact of children being threatened to be killed. But the same cannot be given the due significance. The statement of the prosecutrix clearly shows that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by both the accused persons turnbyturn. It is a case of gang rape. Section 114(1) of the Evidence Act, which was inserted by the Act No. 43 of 1983, provides for presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape and reads as under :

"In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of subsection (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent."

Section 376(2)(g) IPC provides punishment for rape. In the instant case, the accused were prosecuted for raping the prosecutrix under clause (g) of subsections (2) of section 376 IPC. In view of these allegations, the statement of the woman, alleged to have been raped, i.e. the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur (PW 1), stated before the court below that she did not consent. The Court shall presume that she did not consent. The absence of consent in the instant case is, thus, to be presumed under the provisions of Section 114A of the Evidence Act.

Apart from this, the Apex Court has in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra) held as under :

"The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no selfrespecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should be evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person''s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity test that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable ............."

The above observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court are quite relevant and significant to appreciate the evidence of the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur, victim of the sexual lust of the appellants, Satpal and Pala. The evidence of Pritam Kaur (PW 1) is, thus, to be evaluated in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra).

Learned counsel for the appellants criticised the evidence of Pritam Kaur (PW 1) that it is discrepant and that the directions given by her are materially contradicted by the evidence on the record, i.e. the site plan (Exhibit DA). He pointed out that the contradictions regarding the directions showed that the evidence of the prosecutrix was unworthy of credence.

It may be mentioned that Pritam Kaur, the prosecutrix, is absolutely an illiterate witness and has no idea at all about the directions. She does not even know in which direction the sun sets. Therefore, her statement regarding the occurrence of rape cannot be discarded merely because either she has no idea about the directions or her statement is discrepant about the directions of the place of occurrence. These are contradictions of insignificant nature. In the aforesaid case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra), it was held :

" The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."

The Hon''ble Supreme Court further held :

"There has been lately, lot of criticism of the treatment of the victims of sexual assault in the court during their crossexamination. The provisions of Evidence Act regarding relevancy of facts notwithstanding, some defence counsel adopt the strategy of continual questioning of the prosecutrix as to the details of the rape. The victim is required to repeat again and again the details of the rape incident not so such as to bring out the facts on record or to test her credibility but to test her story for inconsistencies with a view to attempt to twist the interpretation of events given by her so as to make them appear inconsistent with her allegations. The Court, therefore, should not sit as a silent spectator while the victim of crime is being crossexamined by the defence. It must effectively control the recording of evidence in the Court. While every latitude should be given to the accused to test the veracity of the prosecutrix and the credibility of her version through crossexamination, the court must also ensure that crossexamination is not made a means of harassment or causing humiliation to the victim of crime. A victim of rape, it must be remembered, has already undergone a traumatic experience and if she is made to repeat again and again, in unfamiliar surroundings, what she had been subjected to, she may be too ashamed and even nervous or confused to speak and her silence or a confused stray sentence may be wrongly interpreted as "discrepancies and contradictions" in her evidence."

In the instant case, a perusal of the long continuing crossexamination of the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur (PW 1) on wholly irrelevant points is an ample illustration of the fact that the defence tried to humiliate the prosecutrix and unfortunately, the trial Judge did not properly control the proceedings during crossexamination of the prosecutrix. To illustrate a few points on which her crossexamination was directed, it may be pointed out that the prosecutrix was asked in crossexamination as to whether she was satisfied with the sexual acts with her husband and about the frequency with which her husband had sexual relations with her. She was also asked if she felt satisfied within the period of 23 minutes of the sexual intercourse with her husband.

Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that in this case the medical officer, Dr. Saveeta Bansal, who conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix, was not examined by the prosecution. It may be mentioned that the medicolegal report prepared by the Dr. Saveeta Bansal in this case did not contain any relevant material helping the Court to arrive at a finding regarding the rape of the prosecutrix Pritam Kaur. Apart from this, the zimini orders of the file show that the learned trial Judge gave several opportunities to the prosecution to examine Dr. Saveeta Bansal, but she could not be served with the summons and she was reported to be outside the State and despite reasonable opportunity being given to the prosecution, her presence could not be procured and eventually the trial court passed the following order on March 27, 1995, closing the evidence of the prosecution :

"PW SI Baldev Singh is present and he has been given up by the Additional P.P. for the State.

No other PW is present. Summons of PWs received back unserved. The Additional P.P. has prayed for the adjournment, which is opposed. Charge was framed in this case on 28.8.92 and since then it is pending for the evidence of the prosecution. But during such long period, the prosecution has failed to complete its evidence, inspite of the fact that last opportunities have been granted to the prosecution on four dates to produce its entire evidence, but the prosecution failed to conclude its evidence. The case is very old. I see no justification for further adjournment of the case for remaining evidence of the prosecution, which is closed by order....... "

In the instant case, the statement of the prosecutrix has been held to be reliable and containing true account of the occurrence of rape commited upon her, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, (supra). It was not necessary for the prosecution to lead corrborative evidence of medical officer regarding the commission of rape.

Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Harbans Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) RCR 431. In the facts of that case wherein, according to the prosecutrix, her legs were lifted and put on the shoulders of the accused and she had a discharge, the manner of intercourse suggested that the prosecutrix did not resist and she was a consenting party. Apart from this, the absence of injury and markes of struggle on the body of the prosecutrix showed that she was a consenting party. The accused was accordingly acquitted of the charge of rape, punishable under Sections 376/34 IPC.

Another authority relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants is also a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Arun Malhotra v. State of Haryana, 1990(3) RCR 662. In that case, the prosectrix was aged about 21 years. There was no injury on her person showing struggle during rape. It was held that the sexual intercourse was committed with the consent of the prosecutrix. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon''ble Suprem Court in the case of Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029 and Partap Misra and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 1307.

It may be noticed that the judgments of the Surpeme Court cited in Arun Malhotra''s case (supra) relate to the period prior to the amendment made in the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act regarding the offences of rape. In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under :

"The alarming frequency of crime against women led the Parliament to enact Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983) to make the law of rape more realistic. By the Amendment Act, Sections 375 and 376 were amended and certain more penal provisions were incorporated for punishing such custodians who molest a women under their custody or care. Section 114A was also added in the Evidence Act for drawing a conclusive presumption as to the absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape, involving such custodians."

In view of the recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, referred to above, in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (supra), the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants have no relevance and are not of binding nature.

I have carefully examined and analysed the evidence on the record and am of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellants of the offence of rape, punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and no interference is called for in the conviction, as also in the sentence awarded to the appellants. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed.