State of Haryana vs Jaswant Singh

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Jaswant Singh (20) was tried for offences under sections 452/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and acquitted by order dated July 16, 1983. The State has preferred the present appeal against acquittal.

The prosecution case is that Smt. Kamla PW2 prosecutrix, was alone in her parents house having come from her inlaws for a short while. Her own parents had gone to the Nohra for milking the cattle. On February 27, 1983, the accused, who is also a resident of the same village Moondi in the area of Police Station Khol, entered the house. At that time Kamla was preparing meals in the kitchen. The accused caught hold of her, undid the string of her salwar and felled her on the ground and started committing rape on her. The prosecutrix raised alarm, which attracted her aunt Smt. Surastri PW 3. Smt. Surasti rescued the proseutrix. Before leaving the accused dealt a threat to the prosecutrix that if she disclosed about the incident to anyone, she would be done to death. After some time the parents of the prosecutrix returned to the house and the prosecutrix narrated the entire occurrence to them. As the prosecutrix is a married woman, her father went to her inlaws house in order to consult them whether the matter should be reported to the Police. He returned after consulting the inlaw of his daughter, the next day at about 3 p.m. He took the prosecutrix to, the Police Station Khol where first information report was recorded on the statement if the prosecutrix by SI Baljit Singh SHO at 8 p.m., after 36 hours of the occurrence. During investigation, the prosecutrix as well as the accused were got medically examined.

The prosecution examined the prosecutrix Smt. Kamla PW2 and Smt. Surasti PW3 as the main witnesses. Dr. S.K. Sansanwal PW1, who had examined the accused and had found nothing to suggest that he was not fit to perform sexual intercourse, was also examined. The lady Dr. who had examined the prosecutrix could not be examined by the prosecution until the prosecution evidence was closed.

The plea of the accused was one of denial. He led no evidence in defence.

On an evaluation of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.

The contention of Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, is that the statement of Smt. Kamla deserves to be accepted, especially as the same is corroborated by Smt. Surasti PW3 and there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused.

We may state at the outset that it is not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court. Expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court, the decision of which is under appeal, is ordinarily sufficient. Since we find ourselves in agreement with the appraisal of evidence carried out by the trial Court, we are not called upon to record a detailed judgment repeating the reasons advanced by the trial Court in support of its conclusion. (See Girijanandini Devi and others v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967, SC 1124).

A very significant feature of this case is that the prosecutrix was inside her house. She happened to have been left alone by her parents who had gone to their cattleshed for a little while. It is difficult to understand how a total stranger entered the house in order to commit rape on the prosecutrix. We find it impossible to accept that but for some background the accused could have entered the house. The reason is simple. The accused had no means of knowing that Smt. Kamla was alone just at that time, that there was no one else in the house and that her parents had gone elsewhere and when they would be returning. He could not also rule out the possibility of some other person visiting the house. It is not a case where the prosecutrix may have been waylaid in the field or some place on a chance meeting.

Admittedly, the prosecutrix was married for about 8 years. She was 20 years of age and the first information report was lodged after a delay of 36 hours. The explanation offered for the delay in lodging the first information report is altogether unacceptable. The explanation given is that her father had gone to her in laws in order to consult them whether the matter should be reported to the police. It is against human probability. In a situation like the one which existed in the present case, the anxiety of the father would be to hide the occurrence from the husband and inlaws of his daughter, so that her married life is not blasted. He would be the last person to go aid consult them after informing them that Smt. Kamla had been raped by a certain person, The explanation for explaining the delay, therefore, deserves to be rejected. The unexplained delay renders the conduct of the prosecutrix as also of her father open to serious doubt. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, medical corroboration which is usually available in cases of rape is not forthcoming. Not only that, being a married woman, Smt. Kamla was used to sexual intercourse and, therefore, the findings of the Lady Doctor would not have substantially advanced the case of the prosecution, it has not been shown that there were any marks indicating any resistance or struggle by the prosecutrix against the accused.

After careful consideration and for the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.