IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not necessary that every rape victim will have injuries on her body.
Every rape victim cannot be expected to straightway go to Police instead of going to her family first.

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506, IPC.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that at the instance of the prosecutrix (PW-10) an F.I.R. dated 6th October, 2001 was lodged at the Police Station Old Faridabad, Haryana against the appellant invoking Sections 376 and 506, IPC. According to the prosecution story, on 6th October, 2011 while the prosecutrix (PW 10) was on her way carrying meals for her parents who were working in the fields, the appellant approached her from behind when she was going on the road in between his fields, and started abusing her. When she protested, the appellant overpowered and pushed her as a result of which she fell down on the ground. The appellant then gagged her mouth and forcibly took her to the nearby ‘arhar’ fields and committed rape on her.

3. After the case was registered, investigation commenced and the prosecutrix was got medically examined on 6th October, 2001 itself. The accused appellant was arrested on the next day and he was also got medically examined. After recording the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164, Cr. P.C., the case property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Subsequently, charges under Sections 376 and 506, IPC were framed against the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. While the prosecution in all examined as many as 12 witnesses to substantiate its allegations against the accused, there were two defence witnesses.

5. Dr. Meenu Kapoor, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad (PW 8) who medically examined the prosecutrix opined that there was possible sexual intercourse, but there was no external injury mark anywhere on the body of the prosecutrix. She deposed before the Trial Court that human semen was detected on undergarments of the victim.

6. Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW 2 who examined the accused appellant found nothing which could suggest that the accused could not perform sexual intercourse. He also noticed bone injuries on the right forearm, left hand, right shoulder and right leg of the accused, which are simple in nature.

7. PW-11, father of the victim supported the prosecution story. He deposed that after hearing the noise of his daughter, he reached the spot and saw the accused running. When he tried to apprehend the accused, he ran away.

8. It is the case of the appellant before the Trial Court that the prosecutrix had intentionally implicated him in this case as she had developed personal grudge against him because he along with his father (DW 1) and one Zile Singh (DW 2) visited the house of the prosecutrix and made a complaint to her father the she had been keeping bad company with some boys and asked her father to keep an eye on her. This resulted in an altercation between them and consequently the prosecutrix warned them that she would implicate the appellant in a false case.

9. The Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly relying on the FSL report (Ext. P1), came to the conclusion that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, and accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 506, IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

10. Dealing with the appeal preferr