Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Baljinder @ Joginder - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. S-831-SB-2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-09-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Saini, AAG, Haryana
IMPORTANT POINT
Rape – Accused must be protected against the possibility of false implication.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sole statement of prosecutrix – The fact that the solitary statement of the prosecutrix is always to be considered as truthful cannot be mechanically applied to every case of sexual assault and the veracity of the story projected by the prosecution qua the allegations of rape must be examined. (Para 24)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sole statement of prosecutrix – If the statement of prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and deliberate improvements on material points, no reliance can be placed thereon. (Para 28)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – Sole testimony of prosecutrix – Acquittal – Allegation that while going to another village she was dragged in field and was raped – Held;
(i) The two independent witnesses denied the fact that they were present or had gone to help the victim as contended by prosecutrix;
(ii) Contradiction in statements as to sequence of events as stated in complaint, before magistrate and during trial.
(iii) the medical evidence coupled with the FSL report and the delay in lodging the FIR, leaves a mark of doubt to treat the testimony of the prosecutrix as natural so as to inspire confidence – The story put forward by the prosecution is improbable and belies logic – Accused acquitted. (Para 32)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 – Rape – False implication – Accused must be protected against the possibility of false implication – The evidence of prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should without exception be taken as the gospel truth. (Para 26)
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 376 IPC.
2. Elaborating the facts the prosecutrix, aged 16 years, along with her uncle approached the police and lodged a complaint. Her elder sister had married to Ramesh in village Jathlana. On the fateful day at about 10:00 A.M., the prosecutrix left home to visit her sister and was going on foot. She had reached the canal bridge when Rahul son of Tilak Raj, resident of village Alahar came on a motor cycle and offered lift upto village Jathlana. Since he was a co-villager, the prosecutrix accepted the offer and sat on the motor cycle. After covering some distance, Baljinder (appellant) met them. Rahul stopped the motor cycle. Allegations are that Baljinder dragged the prosecutrix from the motor cycle and dragged her to the sugarcane fields and raped her. When the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, he stuffed her chunni in her month. Her alarm attracted Raj Pal Kamboj and Anil who ran to help her. The prosecutrix returned home and narrated the incident to her uncle.
3. Investigations were initiated. The prosecutrix was medically examined. She was produced before the Magistrate for her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the FIR was registered on 4.9.2011. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against Baljinder and Rahul. Rahul was a juvenile. His challan was presented before the Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board, Yamuna Nagar.
4. Charge was framed under Section 376 IPC against Baljinder Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined the victim, her uncle Samay Singh, medical officers, Patwari Halqa, Raj Pal, Anil, police officials and the Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. besides the Head Teacher of the Government Primary School, Alahar to prove the age of the victim.
6. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused pleaded false implication and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He also deposed that the father of the prosecutrix and her uncles had taken money from his father for getting him employed in government service and they had cheated them and an FIR was got lodged at P.S. Radaur in 1997 against the family members of the prosecutrix and they were sent behind bars and their family was nursing a grudge and he had been implicated to settle scores.
7. By way of defence, copies of the documents pertaining to the FIR were tendered in evidence.
8. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence before it concluded that on the day of incident the prosecutrix was more than 18 years and was major but accepted the statement of the prosecutrix and held him guilty and sentenced him to the punishment mentioned hereinabove.
9. I have heard the submissions of both the sides.
10. The contention made by the counsel for the appellant was that the incident is alleged to have taken place at 10:00 A.M. when the victim was going on foot to meet her sister who lives in the adjoining village and the distance is not much and on the way Rahul, a co-villager, offered lift on his motor cycle and offered to drop her at Jathlana and they had covered some distance when the accused was seen coming. It was urged that Rahul is said to have stopped the motor cycle and the appellant dragged the girl and took her to the sugarcane field and raped her. It was urged that at the trial, the prosecutrix denied this version and instead stated that Rahul had offered prasad which was spiked and the accused came and took her to the sugarcane field. It was urged that such an incident could not have occurred in broad daylight. It was urged that there was old enmity between the two families and it is the uncle who accompanied the girl and not the parents for lodging the FIR. It was urged that Raj Pal who is said
