Bal Kishan vs State of Haryana

Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral)

This is an appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 30.7.1986/31.7.1986 vide which the accused appellant was awarded a sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence under Section 376 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before this Court i.e. (i) that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which, according to the learned counsel, are fatal to the case and entitles the appellant for acquittal, and (ii) that no offence is made out under any of the provisions of the Code for which the appellant has been challenged because the prosecutrix had consented to the intercourse.

In the present case the prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove its case. The material witnesses are PW 1 Rohtash, husband of the prosecutrix, PW 2 Maksudan wife of Rohtash (the prosecutrix) and PW 3 Dr. Rekha Yadav. After going through the statements of all these witnesses the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any contradictions, much less material contradictions, entitling him for any benefit whatsoever. On the contrary there is a consistent case proved by these witnesses with regard to a forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, against her wish and without her consent. The doctor has, in her statement, deposed that the prosecutrix had suffered injuries. In Ex. PC, which is the medicolegal report of the prosecutrix, the injuries have been shown, however, these have been described as simple. The judgment of the trial court in this regard is fully sustainable.

The minor discrepancies or contradictions which the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out to my mind, are not material and are of a nature not at all consequential to the main matter. The Supreme Court in a case reported as AIR 1983 Supreme Court 599, Abher Pitha Vajshi and others v. The State of Gujarat, has settled the law that the contradictions have to be very material and of substance for giving the benefit of doubt to an accused. The Supreme Court in the case (supra) had cautioned that the Court should not attach any unreasonable importance to minor contradictions and should not appreciate the evidence by attaching such undue importance to the minor discrepancies. In the present case the entire evidence on record sufficiently proves the offence against the appellantaccused. The appreciation of evidence and assessment made by the learned trial court is in conformity with the settled principles of law and does not call for any interference. The evidence has been carefully scrutinised by the Additional Sessions Judge and I see no reason to do otherwise.

In their case reported as 1983 Criminal Law Journal 1096 titled as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. The State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court has held that over much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies and corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The statement of victim of rape of sexual molestation should not be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelieve or suspicion. In the present case the story of the prosecutrix is fully corroborated by the statement of her husband and other evidence on record. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix. The statement of PW 8, the Investigating Officer, also is in line with the case of the prosecution. In spite of the efforts made by the police from 15.10.1986, the appellant was not available and was only arrested on 17.10.1985 and on that very day the recovery of the prosecutrix was effected by the investigation officer.

The judgment Of the Court below is well reasoned and is in consonance with the settled principles of law and as such deserves on interference on merits. Accepting the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and on the reasonable appreciation of the entire evidence this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The learned trial Court has also taken a very liberal view and awarded a very reasonable sentence, which is also sustained.

In view of my discussion above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant who is on bail, is directed to surrender to custody in order to undergo the remaining portion of sentence imposed upon him.