Sis Ram vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

On October 15, 1984, Sunam, daughter of Badlu and her elder brother Ashok Kumar were working in their field in the area of village Teekli. Till about 3 p.m. they were both there, but at about that time Ashok Kumar went to the village for serving fodder to the cattle. Sunam stayed back in the field and continued working there for some time and then went towards the room attached to their tubewell. The accusedappellant came towards that tubewell from the side of his nearby field and requested her to lend him an electric bulb. She refused to oblige him, but in spite of that the appellant went inside the room Sunam suspecting that he might not steal the bulb, innocently followed him in that room. The appellant immediately shut the door of the room and forced her to lie on the ground and stripped her naked. The appellant started committing rape on her by penetrating his male organ into her vagina. Sunam started crying. Ashok Kumar, brother of Sunam, in the meantime, returned to her field and on hearing the shrieks of his sister, challenged the appellant. Rambir, a cousin brother of Sunam was also attracted to that place on hearing the cries. The appellant came out of the room, ran towards the side of the village. Ashok Kumar and Rambir noticed their sister bleeding and found that her pyjamas were stained with blood. Her vagina was bleeding. She narrated entire occurrence to her brother and cousin.

Sunam was taken to the village. From the village she, her cousin brother Rambir and uncle Parbhati proceeded towards Gurgaon to lodge a report with the police. A.S.I. Shankar Lal P.W. of Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon met them at Badshahpur, which falls on the way. It was 10 p.m. at that time Shankar Lal recorded the statement of Sunam and got the case registered, went to the spot lifted blood smeared search from there, got Sunam medically examined from Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala of General Hospital, Gurgaon. The appellant was arrested on October 22, 1984, and was medicolegally examined by Dr. D. Prashar, P.W. 2 After investigation, the appellant was challaned, tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon under section 376, Indian Penal Code, and awarded 10 years'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ ; in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 year. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this appeal.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P.W. 1 Dr. Nirmala of General hospital, Gurgaon. Dr. Nirmala had examined Sunam prosecutrix at 12.20 a.m. on the night intervening October 15/16, 1984. Dr. Nirmala made the following observations :

There was no external mark of injury over face, hands, abdomen, back and lower limb.

On vaginal examination, I notice an injury of 1 cm. in the posterior vaginal wall. That was nucasa deep. There was bleeding, and clothed blood was also present. The laceration extended to skin 1 cm. muscle deep. There were blood stains on the pyjamas and shirts.

Two vaginal swabs were prepared. Dr. Nirmala handed over these along with the shirt and the pyjamas of the prosecutrix to the police. The pyjamas and the shirt were made into separate sealed parcels. Dr. D. Prashar PW 2 had medico legally examined the appellant on October 22, 1984, at 10 a.m. and found that Smegma was absent from corona glands and there was no mark of injury over any part of his body. The underwear of the appellant was taken into possession by the doctor and was handed over to the police in a sealed parcel. PW 3 Sunam prosecutrix gave a detailed account of the version regarding the manner in which she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant inside the room of the tubewell when her brother was away to the village. She further narrated that the appellant had filed away from the scene when he was challenged by her brother and stated that she made the statement Exhibit PC to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered PW 4 Lal Chand, Statistical Assistant, office of CMO, Gurgaon has proved entry Exhibit PD Exhibit PD shows that Sunam prosecutrix was born on March 25, 1975. S.I. Ram Phal PW 5 is the investigating officer, who had presented the challan PW 6. Shivnath Singh Patwari prepared the site plan Exhibit PE. HC Mool Chand PW 7 is a formal witness, who kept the sealed parcels containing the material articles for safe custody before the same were forwarded to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for analysis. PWB Ashok Kumar is the brother of Sunam prosecutrix. He has corroborated the narration given by his sister Sunam and PW 9 Shankar Lal ASI is the principal investigating officer. The articles taken into possession during investigation were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhubhan and reports Exhibits PJ. PJ1 made by the Senior Scientific OfficercumChemical Examiner were tendered in evidence. These reports indicate presence of human semen on the underwear of the appellant and human blood on the blood smeared search lifted from the place of the occurrence, on the vaginal swabs as well as garments of the prosecutrix.

When examine under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication.

No evidence was led by the appellant in defence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence. In this case, Sunam prosecutrix and her brother Ashok Kumar have given a detailed account of the incident and in spite of lengthy cross examination, nothing has come on record to discredit them. Their testimony is supported by medical evidence. The injury found by Dr. Nirmala PW 2 was on posterior vaginal wall and the doctor was of the opinion that this injury could be caused in the course of penetration of male organ into the vagina. The defence of the appellant is that the accusation is false. In our society, the levelling of such a charge by a girl of tender age is very rare and in the absence of very strong circumstances militating against her veracity, her testimony will not be discredited. The aftereffects of sexual abuse are very grave and it is not expected that a false charge will be levelled unless there is serious enmity. In this case, nothing has been suggested. I do not find any reason to discredit the testimony of Sunam specially when she is corroborated by her brother and the medical evidence. She is a child of 10 years and was molested by the appellant just to satisfy his lust.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is some delay in the lodging of the first information report. I do not find any force in the same. There is no delay and even if there is some delay, that is not very material in such cases.

My attention has been drawn to the statement of Dr. Nirmala PW wherein she had stated that she (Sunam) had received this injury by a fall from a height of five feet and that she (Dr. Nirmala) had recorded it in Exhibit PA her medicolegal report. This note is of no significance as the doctor has also said in her statement that the injury could be caused by penetration of male organ. If the injury was the result of a fall, there would have been other injuries also. Therefore, the statement of the doctor does not impress me and the defence cannot get any benefit out of the same.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I do not find any fault with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for reduction in the sentence. In view of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983, the minimum sentence is 10 years, when the victim is 12 years of age. Sunam prosecutrix was admittedly less than 12 years at the time of the incident. So the trial Court has awarded the minimum sentence. I do not find any ground to interfere with the sentence.

In this view of the matter, this appeal has no force and is dismissed.