State of H.P. vs Maru Ram

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 23.02.1998 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala in Sessions Case No. 25-G/VII/97 whereby she acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix, who was aged about 35 years, was returning to her house at about 8.30 p.m on 15.7.1996. When she was about half a kilometer away from her house the accused accosted her, lifted her up and took her away from the path towards a nearby Nallah where he subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse three times. He set her free after five hours at about 1.30 a.m. The prosecutrix then went to the house of Shri Gorkhu Ram, which was at a distance of about 100 yards from the scene of occurrence. She narrated the incident to the family members of Gorkhu Ram. Her uncle was called to the house of Gorkhu Ram and thereafter they all went to the house of Pradhan Prakash Chand. They reported the matter to him and he advised them to report the matter to the police and on the next day statement of the prosecutrix u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure. Ext.PW-1/A was recorded. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. Ext.PW- 10/A was lodged against the accused. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Other investigation was completed at the spot. After completion of investigation challan was filed against the accused and the accused was charged with having committed an offence of rape. The accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present appeal by the State.

In respect of rape cases, the law is very clear that the statement of the prosecutrix does not need corroboration and the accused can be convicted even on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix but there is an important caveat that the statement of the prosecutrix inspire confidence and is reliable. The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that in this case the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be believed for various reasons. Other than the statement of the prosecutrix there is no other direct evidence against the accused.

As per the prosecutrix she was lifted by the accused taken to the Nallah and raped thrice. She has given inconsistent version in her testimony as to her reaction. In one version she stated that she did not raise any alarm but in cross-examination she stated that she had raised a hue and cry which was heard by the family members of Gorkhu Ram. It has come in evidence of the Investigating Officer and it is apparent from the site plan Ext.PW-10/B and also from the statements of the other witnesses that there are number of houses situated near the spot from where the prosecutrix was allegedly lifted by the accused. If she had raised a hue and cry at 8.30 p.m in the month of July when people are normally awake, somebody would have definitely heard her cries and come to her rescue. The learned trial Court also noted that the prosecutrix appeared to be stronger and heavier than the accused. In such an event if the accused had lifted the prosecutrix and taken her away there was nothing which prevented the prosecutrix from raising an alarm or from fighting with the accused.

Another contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix is that according to her she suffered the injuries on her back when she was raped in the Nallah which had a stony surface. However, the doctor Shachi Dogra, PW-9, did not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix. No doubt, PW-2 Parveen Kaur, wife of Gorkhu Ram and PW-3 Prakash Chand have supported the prosecutrix to the effect that at about 2.00 a.m she first came to the house of Gorkhu Ram and at about 3.00 a.m she went to the house of Pradhan. However, Shri Sunka Ram, uncle of the prosecutrix, who allegedly arrived at the house of Gorkhu Ram was not examined. Another reason to doubt the prosecution version is that there is no explanation as to why the family members of the prosecutrix did not come out to search for her though she was missing from 8.30 p.m at night till 3.30 a.m in the morning when she went to the house of the Pradhan. Another version put forward by the prosecutrix is that the accused administered her some herbs and grass due to which she became unconscious. This fact was not mentioned in the original statement recorded u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if this fact is overlooked, the Investigating Officer who admittedly went to the spot on the next day did not try to recover any grass or herbs which the prosecutrix alleged were administered to her by the accused.

The learned trial Court for the aforesaid reasons was fully justified in not relying upon the statement of the prosecutrix. We find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.