Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.3.1987/20.3.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months.

Briefly, the prosecution story is that on 16.9.1986 at about 4.30 P.M. Lila Wati, prosecutrix was plucking cotton flowers from her own field, known as Meda Wala in village Girawar, when accused Satbir Singh came form behind and embraced her from her back. Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix forcibly to the bajra crop standing in the adjoining field belonging to her. The prosecutrix tried to free herself from the clutches of the accused but he made her to fall on the ground and started opening the string of her salwar. On resistance being shown by the prosecutrix, the accused attempted to bite on her face, which she also prevented and raised an alarm. In the meantime, the accused had, however succeeded in tearing her salwar from 23 places and also in opening the string of her salwar. Thereafter, the accused committed rape on her because she had become helpless and thereafter unconscious. The alarm raised by Lila Wati, prosecutrix attracted Gindori (PW.7) who was working in nearby field, to the spot. She gave slaps from both of her hands on the back of accused while he was still lying on Lila Wati PW; as a result whereof he got up, pushed her and ran away from there. Gindori (PW.7) also raised an alarm, which attracted Suresh (PW.8) who was working in a nearby field. When Suresh, PW was about half killa from the field of Lila Wati, PW he also saw the accused running from there. On seeing Suresh PW, the accused wielded his lathi which Suresh PW snatched from him and as an impact of that, the accused fell down and sustained injuries but he managed to escape. Prosecutrix Lila Wati narrated the entire occurrence to Gindori and Suresh PWs, who brought her to her house, where her husband was not present at that time. On that very evening, Lila Wati PW told the story to her husband Satbir Singh PW whereafter she was taken to Primary Health Centre, Madina but she could not be medically examined because there was no lady doctor and, as such, they returned to the village. On the following day, Satbir Singh, PW husband of the prosecutrix, collected brotherhood in the village and, thereafter, he along with Lila Wati prosecutrix, Gindori and Suresh PWs went to Police Station, Meham where Lila Wati PW lodged report, Ex. PF with the Police on 17.9.1989 at 7.30 P.M. Thereafter, ASI Partap Singh (PW10) recorded the statements of other PWs. in Police Station, Meham and on that very day, Lila Wati PW was taken to Civil Hospital, Rohtak, where she was medicolegally examined by lady doctor Shashi Chaudhary (PW.3) on 18.9.1986 at 10.00 A.M. who made the following observations :

"Teeth : Upper jaw 15 teeth, lower jaw 15 teeth

Height: ''52"

Weight: 41 Kgs.

GENERAL EXAMINATION:

Pubic and axillary hair present, breast well developed and pendulous. No mark of injury was seen anywhere in the external genitalia and other parts of the body.

P/V EXAMINATION:

Hymen absent, Vagina easily admits two fingers Cervix upward, Uterus retroverted, multiparous size fornices clear. Cervix healthy."

Ex. PD/1 is the correct carbon copy of M.L.R. Dr. Chaudhary had also taken two vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix, her public hair, chocolate coloured printed (white and green) salwar, Ex. P.2, torn at places having suspicious stains and after putting them into separate sealed parcels, handed over the same to the Police for sending these to the Chemical Examiner, Haryana.

On 18.9.1986, the prosecutrix was also Xrayed by Dr. B.P. Sharma (PW.2) on Police request, Ex. PC and vide his report, Ex. PC/1 and skiagrams, Ex. PC/2 to 4, he opined that she was more than 17 years of age on that day.

Thereafter, ASI Partap Singh, PW went to the spot, got the place of occurrence photographed from Jagat Singh (PW.5), picked up pieces of broken glass bangles from the spot, made these into sealed parcel and took the same into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PJ attested by Gindori and Suresh PWs. He also prepared rough site plan, Ex. PK, of the place of occurrence and on return to the police station on the same day, deposited the case property with MHC with seals intact.

On 23.9.1986, the accused was produced before ASI Partap Singh by Bani Singh s/o Ram Sarup in Police Station, Meham and he was arrested in this case. Thereafter, ASI Partap Singh, on his application, Ex. PA, got the accused medicolegally examined on 23.9.1986 from Dr. R.K. Chaudhry (PW.1) who vide his medicolegal report, Ex. PB, observed as under :

"He was young male having mustache, beard and axillary and pubic hair. All male secondary sexual characters were well developed. Genitalia were normal. He was wearing a dirty white kachha and as per his version it was the same underwear which he was wearing for the last 78 days. There was no hair sticking to the inner aspect of kachha.

INJURIES:

Complaint of pain just above right wrist. No external mark of injury. No swelling or tenderness.

Complaint of pain on lower part of left thigh. No external mark of injury. No swelling or tenderness.

Complaint of pain on left knee joint. No external mark of injury. Movements of knee joint normal.

0.5 cm x 0.3 cm healed abrasion with crust over it, over anterolateral aspect of left knee joint along lower border of patella.

1 x 0.2 cm healed abrasion with crust over it over upper part of left leg just lateral to tibial tuberosity."

According to Dr. Chaudhary, all the injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. Injuries No. 4 and 5 were opined to be of more than seven days duration. He further stated that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was not able to perform sexual intercourse.

Sube Singh Patwari (PW4) deposed having prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PE, of the place of occurrence, at the instance of prosecutrix Lila Wati on 22.11.1986.

Report, Ex. PM, of Chemical Examiner, Haryana revealed presence of human semen on kachha, Ex. P.1, salwar (Ex. P.2) and vaginal swabs which were sent by the Police for analysis and report.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in all, besides tendering in evidence affidavits, Ex.PG, Ex. PG/1, Ex.PG/2, Ex.PG/3 and Ex.PG/4 of H.C. Subhash Chander, Constable Mehar Singh, Constable Ram Kumar, Constable Baljit Singh and H.C. Sher Singh respectively and report Ex.PM dated 31.12.1986 of the Assistant Chemical Examiner. S.I. Prem Singh and ASI Rattan Singh P.Ws were given up as unnecessary.

PW.1 is Dr. R.K. Chaudhary who had medicolegally examined the accused on 23.9.1986, PW.2 is Dr. B.P. Sharma, who had conducted Xray examination of the prosecutrix with regard to her age on 18.9.1986 and PW.3 is lady doctor Shashi Chaudhry, who had medicolegally examined the prosecutrix on 18.9.1986. A gist of statements of these witnesses has already been given in the earlier part of the judgment .

PW.4 Sube Singh, Patwari, proved site plan, Ex.PE of the place of occurrence, which he had prepared on 22.11.1986.

PW.5 is Jagat Singh, Photographer, who had taken six photographs of the place of occurrence; the negatives whereof are Ex.P.3/1 to P.3/6, while positive photographs are Ex. P.3/7 to 12 which he had prepared from the negatives without retouching.

PW.6 is Lila Wati prosecutrix herself, while PW.7 Gindori and PW.8 Suresh are eye witnesses to the occurrence and a brief resume of their statements has already been given above while discussing the prosecution story.

PW.9 is Satbir Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, who was tendered for crossexamination while PW.10 ASI Partap Singh, the Investigating Officer gave a detailed account of the manner in which investigation was conducted by him.

When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution and pleaded his innocence and false implication by the prosecutrix at the instance of her husband and others, firstly, because on account of a dispute which had taken place between him and her husband about a year prior to the alleged occurrence which was got compromised by Sarpanch and Lambardar of the village, and, secondly that on 16.9.1986 itself when his wife was picking up some sticks from the fancy, Gindori, Lila Wati, Suresh, Satbir Singh PWs and Devi Chand caught hold of his wife and when he went to rescue her, the above mentioned persons inflicted injuries to him and he was rescued by Baniya, his wife and daughter who were working in the nearby field and one Krishan s/o Munshi. He also pleaded that he had been falsely involved in this case due to past enmity and also to save the PWs from the legal consequences for beating him on 16.9.1986. He even denied his arrest by the Police on 23.9.1986 and stated that, in fact, he was detained by the Police on 17.9.1986 and thereafter his arrest was shown wrongly on 23.9.1986.

In his defence, the accused examined four witnesses in all.

D.W.1. is Dr. Khazan Singh, Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Chiri, who on 17.9.1986 at 2.35 P.M. had medicolegally examined the accused and found the following injuries on his person :

"1. 2 x 0.5 cm. swelling on the outer surface of the upper part of left leg. Scab was present which was blackish in colour. There was underlying swelling and it was 4.5 cm. away and below the lower border of left petalla. Movements of left knee joint were restricted, both actively and passively.

A bruise was present on the left thigh. It was 7.5 cm. x 3.5 cm and it was painful to touch. It was 13.5 cm away and above the upper border of left patella.

A contusion 5 x 2.5 cm. present on the back surface of left knee joint. Movements of the joint restricted.

Patient complained of pain over the nose. No injury was visible.

All the injuries were opined to have been caused by blunt weapon within a probable duration of 24 hours. Injury No. 4 was declared simple and for ascertaining nature of remaining injuries, the accused was referred to Civil Hospital for Xray examination. Ex. DA/1 is the carbon copy of M.L.R.

D.W.2 is Dr. Anshul, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Madina, who had medico legally examined Lila Wati prosecutrix on 16.9.1986 at 7.30 P.M. as a private case and observed the following :

Complained of pain chest. No external mark of injury was seen.

Complained of pain on lower part of back. No external mark of injury seen.

Raddish blue bruise of 0.75 x 0.75 cm. present on antero surface of upper border of left pattela. Slight swelling. Local tenderness was present.

Dr. Anshul further stated that Lila Wati was referred to Civil Hospital for expert opinion. However, all the injuries were opined to have been caused by blunt weapon within a probable duration of 12 hours. Ex.DB is correct carbon copy of M.L.R.

D.W.3 is Baniya who supported the defence version regarding beating of the accused by the PWs.

D.W.4 is Ram Sarup, Sarpanch of village Girawar, who deposed about the dispute which was alleged to have taken place between the accused and the husband of the prosecutrix in the past and which was got compromised by him.

I have heard Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Pattar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State and have also gone through the evidence on record carefully.

The presence of prosecutrix Lila Wati and Gindori and Suresh PWs in the field of the prosecutrix in village Girawar on the date and time of the alleged occurrence has not been disputed by defence because even according to defence version, these three PWs along with Satbir Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, and one other person had inflicted injuries to the accused, when his wife had tried to pick up some sticks from the fence. There is no dispute that the accused had sustained injuries on his person at the time of occurrence but according to prosecution, he had sustained injuries on his person as while running from the spot after the arrival of Gindori PW, he had wielded his lathi on seeing Suresh PW coming but Suresh had caught hold of his lathi; whereupon the accused fell down and sustained slight injuries. Thus, the question which needs consideration is as to whether defence version is probable or the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt against the accused.

According to defence version, the accused had been involved in this case falsely, firstly, because about one year prior to the present occurrence, the husband of the prosecutrix had lifted jawar crop of the accused and the accused had given him slaps and that the said dispute was got compromised by Sarpanch and Lambardar of the village and, secondly, to save the skin of the PWs because the accused had sustained injuries at the hands of the prosecutrix and other persons, mentioned above, when the wife of the accused had tried to pick up some sticks from the fence. As regards the dispute, which is alleged to have taken place about one year prior to the present occurrence, statement of Ram Sarup Sarpanch, D.W.4 demolishes the case of the accused because according to him the said dispute took place in the month of June 1986 whereas according to the accused himself, the said dispute had taken place about one year prior to the present occurrence. The present occurrence took place on 16.9.1986, meaning thereby that the previous dispute had taken place between the accused and husband of the prosecutrix in the month of September 1986 and not in June 1986 as stated by Ram Sarup Sarpanch, D.W.4.

As regards the receipt of injuries by the accused at the hands of the PWs on the date and time of the occurrence, when the wife of the accused had tried to pick up some sticks from the fence, statement of Baniya (D.W.3) does not inspire confidence because his statement shows that Satbir Singh accused himself had about 80 bighas of agricultural land, which was about 45 killas away from his (Baniya) field and that bajra corp was also standing in the field of the accused and harvesting was also going on there. Thus, when harvesting was going on in the field of the accused himself, how he along with his wife could be expected to be present in the field of Baniya, adjoining the field of the prosecutrix, for harvesting bajra crop from the field of Baniya. In all human probabilities, he could be expected to be present in his own field for harvesting or bajra crop. It is nowhere the case of Baniya D.W. or the accused himself that they used to help in harvesting the crop of each other. Further, according to defence version, Krishan son of Munshi had also rescued the accused from the hands of the PWs named above but Baniya D.W. does not name any such Krishan also to be present at the relevant time. Further, according to the suggestions put to ASI Partap Singh P.W. in his crossexamination, the entire story mentioned above was told to him at the spot on that day by Baniya aforesaid but Baniya D.W. himself had not stated so and rather he had admitted that he had stated this version only in the Court and not to anybody else. His statement shows that although he had come to know about 20 days after the above mentioned episode that the accused had been involved falsely in this case but still he did not go to the Police Station to state about the innocence of the accused. Moreover, according to Baniya, D.W., Suresh PW had given 23 lathi blows on both the feet of accused Satbir Singh while son of Debu gave 56 fists on the back of Satbir Singh, accused but statement of Dr. Khazan Singh (D.W.1) does not show any injury on any of the foot of the accused. Statement of Dr. Khazan Singh D.W. shows that he had found swelling on upper part of left leg, left patella, bruise on left thigh and contusion on the left knee joint of the accused when he had medicolegally examined him on 17.9.1986 at 2.35 P.M. These injuries, according to Dr. Khazan Singh D.W., could be the result of a fall on hard surface and this opinion of the doctor fits in the prosecution case that the accused had sustained some minor injuries when he had fallen down after his lathi had been caught hold of by Suresh PW while he was running from the spot. Further, according to Baniya, D.W. the wife of the accused was also pushed to the ground by the prosecutrix and Gindori PWs. If it were so, then the wife of the accused must have also sustained some injuries on her person but no such stand has been taken by the accused himself.

In view of the above discussion, the defence version is rendered highly improbable and unacceptable. This is further supported from the very fact that the accused had chosen to approach Police post, Lakhan Majra, instead of Police of Meham although his own village did not fall in police post Lakhan Majra, and instead of getting himself medically examined at Madina or Meham hospital, he had chosen to get himself medically examined in Primary Health Centre, Chiri. He also did not place on record any copy of the report which he might have made in Police post, Lakhan Majra on 17.9.1986 which led to his medical examination in Primary Health Centre, Chiri through the Police of Police Post, Lakhan Majra.

Now coming to the case of the prosecution, besides statement of prosecutrix herself, there is also testimony of Gindori and that of Suresh, PWs. in support of the prosecution case. It is a settled law that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands at par with the evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be selfinflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is unlikely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sexoffence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding, as corroboration in the form of eyewitness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It will, therefore, be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the ''probabilitiesfactor'' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, or when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self preservation or when the ''probabilitiesfactor'' is found to be out of tune. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1983 SC 753, it has been observed by the Apex Court that a girl or a woman in the tradition bound nonpermissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including her own family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. In view of this and similar factors the victim and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book. When in the face of these factors, the crime is brought to light, there is an in built assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.

Thus, keeping in view the principle laid down in Bharwada''s case (supra) statement of Lila Wati prosecutrix herself alone is sufficient to believe the commission of sex offence by the accused because her statement on consideration is not bound to be suffering from any basic infirmity and even the "probabilitiesfactor" does not render her statement unworthy of credence. Even if any corroboration is required to her testimony, besides medical evidence, there are statements of Gindori and Suresh PWs. whose presence, as already mentioned, in the field of the prosecutrix on the date and time of the occurrence has not been disputed by the deface. Statement of Gindori PW clearly shows that when on hearing the alarm, she had gone to the spot, she saw the accused still lying on Lila Wati and when she gave slaps from both of her hands on the back of the accused, he got up, pushed her aside and ran away from there. Statement of Suresh PW shows that when on hearing the alarm, he was going towards the place of occurrence and was about half a killa from the spot, the accused was seen coming running from the side of the place of occurrence and on seeing him, the accused wielded his lathi, which he caught hold and the accused fell down and received minor injuries. His statement further shows that on reaching the spot, he had found Lila Wati and Gindori PWs present there and Lila Wati PW had told the entire story to them. These two witnesses are not closely related to the prosecutrix or her husband except that they belonged to the same community. But for minor discrepancies as to whether Suresh PW had gone with the prosecutrix to Civil Hospital, Rohtak or not and whether Gindori, PW had also gone to Civil Hospital, Rohtak or not with Lila Wati, when she was taken by the Police for her medical examination, there is nothing in the statements of these two witnesses to disbelieve them. The defence plea that these two witnesses and for that matter the prosecutrix have deposed falsely against the accused to save their skin because they had inflicted injuries to Satbir Singh accused, when the wife of Satibir Singh accused tried to pick up some sticks from the fencing in the field of the prosecutrix, is not found to be probable at all, as already discussed above.

It is correct that just after the occurrence on that very evening, Lila Wati P.W. was medically examined by Dr. Anshul D.W.2 in P.H.C. Madina at 7.30 P.M. and he had found one reddish blue bruise on antero surface of upper border of left patella with local tenderness. Besides, the prosecutrix was also complaining of pain in her chest and lower part of her back. It is also correct that Lila Wati had not told Dr. Anshul D.W. at that time that she had any other injury on her private parts or that she had been raped, but that does not, in any way, affect the prosecution case so far the commission of offence by the accused is concerned because statement of Lila Wati P.W. shows that they did not go to the Police Station immediately on that date because her husband had collected brotherhood for taking decision; and so in the absence of having taken any decision to report the matter to the Police, it could not be expected of Lila Wati to have told Dr. Anshul D.W. that she had been subjected to rape and, secondly, there is nothing in the defence version that the accused and for that matter his wife, Baniya D.W. or his wife and daughter had given any injury to Lila Wati PW at the time when these PWs are alleged to have inflicted injuries to Satibir Singh accused. Statement of Lila Wati P.W. shows that since she was made to fall on the ground by the accused on bajra crop, so possibility of her receiving a bruise on her patella and complaint of pain in her lower back and chest could be there and it appears that she had gone to hospital at Madina to get treatment of pain in her chest and lower back.

It is also correct that statement of Lila Wati PW shows that after she was made to fall on the ground on the bajra crop, the accused had started opening the string of her salwar but she caught hold of string of her salwar, upon which the accused started giving bite on her face but no such mark of bite was found on her face by Dr. Anshul, D.W, when he examined her on that very evening. However, if one reads the statement of Lila Wati PW in between the lines, it will show that in fact, she had not received any bite on her face as she had clearly stated that she had prevented the accused from doing so and that the accused in the meantime, had succeeded in tearing the portion of her salwar from 23 places and, thereafter, he also opened the string of her salwar and committed rape on her because she had become helpless and thereafter unconscious.

It is also correct that when Lila Wati PW was medically examined by lady doctor Shashi Chaudhry, PW on 18.9.1986 in the morning, she did not find any mark of injury on her person or on her private parts but absence thereof in these case is not very much material, firstly, because the prosecutrix was a married woman and as per her statement, she had delivered a child only about 1 months prior to the present occurrence and, secondly, her statement shows that she had become helpless and unconscious. As such, she could not be expected to put much resistance to avoid rape by the accused on her. Statement of Lila Wati PW nowhere shows that she had given stiff resistance to the accused, rather as already mentioned, her statement shows that when she was made to fall on the ground on bajra crop, the accused had torn of her salwar from 23 places and she had become helpless and unconscious. In Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 and Rafiq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 96, it has been observed that absence of injury on the private part of the victim is not material and fatal in every case.

It is also correct that in this case, the matter was reported to the Police at 7.30 P.M. on 17.9.1986 whereas the occurrence took place at 4.30 P.M. on 16.9.1986, meaning thereby that the report was lodged with the Police after expiry of period of 16 hours, Lila Wati PW has given a reasonable explanation for this delay in reporting the matter to the Police. Her statement shows that they did not go to the Police Station immediately because her husband had collected brotherhood for taking decision on 17.9.1986 as on 16.9.1986, he could not contact the members of the brotherhood because they were out on their duty. The prosecutrix is a Brahman by caste and the accused is Jat by caste and under these circumstances, it appears natural that husband of the prosecutrix must be desirous of consulting the brotherhood before taking the matter to the Police because the honour of his family was involved. In Harpal Singh''s case (supra) where the matter was reported after 10 days of the rape, it was observed that as honour of the family was involved, its members had to decide whether to take the matter to court or not and, as such, the explanation of delay of 10 days was found to be reasonable.

Thus from the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing on record to doubt the sworn testimony of Lila Wati P.W. which besides medical evidence also finds corroboration even from the statements of two other witnesses, namely, Gindori and Suresh PWs. Statement of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation carries more weight and there is no reason why her evidence be viewed with suspicion or disbelief. To do so, is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society.

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