Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 1058
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia, J.
Hari Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1986,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 12, 1991
The court held that the evidence of the prosecutrix was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that the medical evidence corroborated her testimony. The court also held that the accused was entitled to leniency in sentencing due to his age, the fact that he had been in detention for more than a year, and the fact that he had no prior criminal record.
Headnote:
RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 114 ILLUSTRATION (B) - EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTRIX - CORROBORATION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - AGE OF PROSECUTRIX - LENIENCY IN SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for raping a minor girl. The prosecution's case was that the accused entered the house of the prosecutrix's relative, where she was sleeping, and raped her. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated due to a strained relationship between his father and the prosecutrix's father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecutrix was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence. The court also found that the accused was about 21 years old at the time of the trial and had been in detention for more than a year. Considering these factors, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the medical evidence corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix. 3. Whether the accused was entitled to leniency in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the prosecutrix was reliable and credible. The court noted that the prosecutrix had given a detailed and consistent account of the incident, and that her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence. 2. The court found that the medical evidence supported the prosecutrix's testimony. The medical examination revealed that the prosecutrix had injuries consistent with sexual assault. 3. The court held that the accused was entitled to leniency in sentencing. The court considered the accused's age at the time of the offense, the fact that he had been in detention for more than a year, and the fact that he had no prior criminal record.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
G.R.Majithia, J.
1. The appellant has come up in appeal against his conviction and sentence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by Additional Sessions Judge (III), Rohtak.
2. The prosecution story, briefly put, is as under :-
The prosecutrixs father PW-8 Raghbir Singh is working as a Khalasi at Railway Station, Shakur Basti Delhi; that he used to go to Delhi from his village Pehrawar; that on the evening of December 9, 1985 Murti asked him that she was to go to Nangloi and her husband was to attend his duties during night, he should send the prosecutrix to her house so that she could sleep there with her small children; that the prosecutrix went to the house of Murti; that she alongwith Nirmala, Vedu and Sushma went to sleep; that Nirmala and the prosecutrix had slept on one cot, while on the other cot, the other children had slept; that the door of the room was bolted from inside; that at about mid-night, the accused appellant knocked at the door of the house and the same was opened by Vedu; that the accused lighted a lamp and then put it off and thereafter, he threatened the prosecutrix and the children of Murti; that the accused picked up the prosecutrix and took her to another kotha of the house, where one cot was lying; that he laid her on the said cot and threatened her not to narrate the incident to anybody that he opened the string of the salwar of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her thrice; that before committing rape, the accused got oil from Vedu and applied the same on the vagina of the prosecutrix; that the prosecutrix was stopped from raising the alarm by the accused by gagging her month with his hands; that after committing rape upon the prosecutrix the accused went away from the kotha and the prosecutrix remained weeping throughout the night; that at about 6/7 A.M. the prosecutrix went to her house and narrated the incident to her mothers sister Dhan Pati, who then took off her salwar and saw the same; that Dhan Pati kept the salwar with her and went to Delhi to call the prose cutrixs father; that the prosecutrixs father alongwith Dhan Pati came to the village and the entire incident was narrated to him by the prosecutrix; that the prosecutrixs father collected the Panchayat of the village, but the accused did not come there as he had absconded and that the panchayat advised prosecutrixs father to lodge report at the police station. The report was lodged on December 11, 1985 at about 5 P.M.
3 The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Sharma (PW1), Dr. A.S. Dahiya (PW2), Dr. Gianender Kumar (PW3), Dhani Ram (PW4), Hawa Singh (PW5), Dhan Pati (PW6), Dr Anju Khosla (PW7), Raghbir Singh (PW8), Sumita (PW9) and Sheo Dhan Singh (PW10). Affidavits of Constable Ram Mehar Singh, Ex. PG, Constable Shamsher Singh, Ex. PH, and Moharrir Head Constable, Rohtas Singh, Ex. PJ. and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. PM were also tendered into evidence. The witnesses Nirmala and Murti were given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused- while Anand Parkash witness was given up as unnecessary.
4. The accused, when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations. He alleged that his father and Mange Ram had strained relations and quarrel between them took place in his absence and he was involved in the instant case at the instance of the son of Mange Ram. In defence, the accused examined Murti Devi (DW1) and Ram Kumar (DW2).
5. Sumita, prosecutrix PW-9 gave the minutest details of the incident as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. Her evidence is straight forward and rings true. In fact the occurrence is impliedly admitted by the accused when a suggestion was made to Sumita that she had sexual intercourse with whom she was friendly, after 10th morning. This suggestion presumably was put to the witness to elicit from her that she had friends with whom she enjoyed sex. If she had sex with
