Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Ram Mehar
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 435SB of 1987,
Decided On : OCTOBER 10, 1997
RAPE - [SECTION 376, 511, 354, INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [FACTUAL MATRIX, MEDICAL EVIDENCE, DELAY IN REPORTING, WITNESS TESTIMONY, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, REFUSAL TO GIVE BLOOD SAMPLE, DAMAGE TO CROP, AGE OF ACCUSED AND VICTIM, RETRIBUTIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT] - SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ON THE FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND LEGAL PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THE CASE, INCLUDING THE DELAY IN REPORTING, THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE REFUSAL TO GIVE BLOOD SAMPLE, THE DAMAGE TO CROP, THE AGE OF THE ACCUSED AND VICTIM, AND THE RETRIBUTIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ram Mehar, was convicted and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 for assaulting and using criminal force on Smt. Roshni with the intent to outrage her modesty. The incident occurred on September 5, 1986, when Ram Mehar intercepted Smt. Roshni in a field, lifted her, and took her to a bajra field. He attempted to open the string of her salwar, but she resisted and struck him with a sickle on the nose. Ram Mehar fled the scene, and Smt. Roshni reported the incident to her husband and father-in-law. The matter was reported to the police the following day, and Ram Mehar was arrested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of Smt. Roshni, her husband, and the medical evidence to establish that Ram Mehar had assaulted Smt. Roshni with the intent to outrage her modesty. The court also found that the delay in reporting the incident was not unreasonable, given the conservative and traditional nature of rural society. The court further found that the refusal of Ram Mehar to give a blood sample and the damage to the crop at the scene of the incident were additional evidence of his guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the delay in reporting the incident was unreasonable. 3. Whether the refusal of Ram Mehar to give a blood sample and the damage to the crop at the scene of the incident were additional evidence of his guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of Smt. Roshni, her husband, and the medical evidence to establish that Ram Mehar had assaulted Smt. Roshni with the intent to outrage her modesty. The court also found that the delay in reporting the incident was not unreasonable, given the conservative and traditional nature of rural society. The court further found that the refusal of Ram Mehar to give a blood sample and the damage to the crop at the scene of the incident were additional evidence of his guilt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of Ram Mehar.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed against Ram Mehar appellant by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 4-7-1987 sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for having assaulted or for having used criminal force to Smt. Roshni wife of Shiv Narain intending to outrage her modesty on 5-9-1986 at about 12-30 p.m. in the areas of village Madina. Fine was ordered to be paid to Smt. Roshni, if recovered.
2. Now the factual matrix of the case in brief.
3. On 5-9-1986, Smt. Roshni wife of Shiv Narain P.W. 2 went to their fields with meals for her husband. After some time, she was returning to her house, she was intercepted by Ram Mehar accused at about 12-30 p.m. who came from behind and caught hold of her. He lifted her and took her in bajra field. She kept trying to get out of his clutches. He felled her on the ground and tried to open the string of her salwar. She raised alarm and gave sickle blows on the face of the accused with a view to disable him so that he did not satisfy his carnal lust on her. Accused fled away. Thereafter she went to her husband and narrated him the episode. She and her husband came to Ram Mehar in his field. Ram Mehar apologised to her husband for this indecent act of assault on his part. She and her husband came to their house in village Madina.
4. Her father-in-law was out of station that day. He returned at about 4 p.m. on 6-9-1986. On 6-9-1986, she and her husband went to PS Madina where the matter was reported by Smt. Roshni. FIR Ex. PD was recorded at PS Madina under Ss. 376/511/354 Indian Penal Code. Ram Mehar was got medically examined at Primary Health Centre, Madina on 11-9-1986 for injuries.
5. After investigation, Ram Mehar was challaned under Ss. 376/511/354, IPC. He was committed to the Court of Session at Rohtak. Ram Mehar was charged under S. 376/511, IPC vide order dated 27-1-1987 by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He was charged under S. 354, IPC as well vide the same order by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. For bringing home to the accused the charge levelled against him, the prosecution examined Dr. Anshul, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Madina PW 1, Smt. Roshni PW. 2, Shiv Narain PW. 3, Shri S. C. Goyal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak PW. 4, Shri Jai Narain PW. 5, Azad Singh Halqa Patwari, PW. 6, Harish Chander, Photographer, Meham PW. 7, and ASI Randhir Singh, PW. 8. Affidavits of constable Subhash Chander, constable Muni Ram, and constable Ishwar Singh Exts. PK, PL and PM respectively were tendered into evidence. Besides, the report of the chemical examiner Exts. PN and PN/1 was tendered into evidence. Accused when examined under S. 313, Cr. P.C. denied the imputations appearing in prosecution evidence against him and stated that it was a false case woven against him because father-in-law of Smt. Roshni was owing some money to his uncle Jyanti Ram. Jyanti Ram held Panchayat in connection with that money dealing. In that Panchayat, he had threatened with the abduction of the daughters of Smt. Roshnis father-in-law. He examined his uncle Jyanti Ram DW. 1 in his defence.
6. At the conclusion of the trial, Ram Mehar was convicted and sentenced as noted above.
7. Dissatisfied with this order of conviction and sentence passed against him by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Ram Mehar has come up in appeal to this Court. Smt. Roshni has given ocular account of what had happened to her at the hands of the accused. Her husband Shiv Narain has stated above what was told to him by his wife immediately after the occurrence. Shiv Narains statement is thus in the nature of corroboration to the statement of his wife in the same chain. Statement of Doctor is in the nature of circumstantial evidence bearing upon the ocular version of Smt. Roshni, Doc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
