CHANDRA SHEKHAR JATAV; HARISHCHANDRA vs STATE OF M P

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; ''tis something, nothing; ''Twas mine, ''tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.

William Shakespeare.

Facts of the case in hand reveal a gory picture of how a man obsessed with sexual lust and perverted mind can touch nadir point of humanity and morality which will put the even the wildest animal to abominable shame. In their mating season, even wild animal follows the law of nature but it is not true in case of homo- sapiens after the Eve forced Adam to taste the forbidden fruit of wisdom in the Eden Garden at the instance of the serpent.

Appellant was charged and tried for having committed kidnapping and thereafter ravishing a minor girl aged about 7-8 years on 26th February 2005 in Bhopal, the capital of the State.

Trial Court found him guilty on the following counts and sentenced him asunder:-

U/s. 363 RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

U/s 366 A RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation

U/s 376(2)(f) RI for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-with default stipulation.

Breifly stated, prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court, was that in the evening of 26th February 2005 prosecuterix was playing outside her house and her mother Nagina bi was busy in the kitchen preparing dinner for the family. After she finished cooking, Naginabi called out to prosecutrix to come home and have dinner. Getting no response, mother went out in search of her but did not find the prosecutrix. All efforts to trace her were in vain; therefore, she went to Police Station Janhagirabad and reported the matter. Report of missing person was recorded in daily dairy and Search parties were organised and ultimately around 2 am in the night prosecuterix was found in bushes near 1250 Hospital in unconscious state without a shred of clothing on her body with profuse bleeding in her private parts. Immediately, she was taken to the 1250 Hospital, which also known as "Jai Prakash Hospital", for treatment. Dr. Zarina Khan MO on night duty examined her around 2.15 am. Dr.Zarina was of the view that she was sexually assaulted and the vagina was completely torn with ruptured hymen. She also noticed that the victim was unconscious. Considering her critical condition of the victim, she referred her to Sultnina Lady Hospital from where victim was referred to

Hamidia Hospital in Bhopal for further treatment. After a prolonged treatment and physiotherapy, prosecuterix pulled through. Appellant was arrested on 31st May 2005 and same day Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta medically examined him and found that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Appellant made extra judicial confession to Dr. Gupta who recorded it verbatim in the words of the appellant in her report. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed and appellant was sent up for trial. In the trial Court appellant abjured his guilt.

In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined, prosecuterix, her parents and neighbour besides the Doctors associated with treatment of prosecuterix during her Hospitalisation.

Prosecuterix (PW1) is an innocent girl of 7 -8 year old girl. She stated she knew the appellant as a neighbour. She described what appellant did to her after removing her clothes. She also stated appellant caused head injury to her and then she passed out. It is not expected from a young innocent child to give minute and details of the sexual violence. Trial Court rightly did not discard her evidence.

Naginabi (PW2) is the mother of the prosecuterix. She proved the fact that prosecuterix was unconscious in 1250 Hospital with profuse bleeding from her private parts. Prosecuterix regained semi consciousness in Hamidia Hospital and murmuring "Uncleji leave me alone". She further proved presecuterix remained unconscious for considerable length of time.

Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW3) examined the appellant on 31.5.05. In her report Ex.P.1, she found appellant capable of performing sexual inter-course. She also recorded the extra judicial confession made by the appellant in Ex.P.1 which reads under:-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

Dr. Gupta categorically denied the suggestion put to her in cross examination that she forced appellant to make the extra-judicial confession. According to Dr. Gupta, it was voluntary and reproduced in the words of the appellant as told to her. This fact is further fortified the question 49 put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, which reads as under:-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

In view of the aforesaid positive answer, the denial of next question, in our considered opinion, pales into insignificance. But nontheless, we reproduce question, which reads as under :-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

Next important witnesses for our purpose are Yuvraj (PW4) and Shaukat Ali (PW5). Yuvraj is the neighbour, who was a member of the search party which discovered the prosecuterix in bushes near 1250 Hospital without clothes in a pathetic condition. His evidence proves the fact that prosecuterix had passed out. She was moaning under pain and she was directly taken to the 1250 Hospital for treatment. Shaukat Ali(PW5) is the father of prosecuterix. He got the information around 3 am that prosecuterix was found near 1250 Hospital. He therefore, immediately rushed to the Hospital and found prosecuterix was unconscious state murmuring "uncle leave me". He further corrobates his wife Naginabi that appellant was residing opposite their home and prosecuterix addressed him as uncle, who used to give small amount of money to the prosecuterix. Probabbly to gain her confidence. He further stated that in 1250 Hospital he noticed profuse bleeding in the vagina of the prosecuterix from where she was referred to lady Hospital (Sultnina Lady Hospital) and thereafter to Hamidia Hospital. He denied that he had any animosity with the appellant. 10. Next and the last important witness for the purposes of the case in hand, is Dr. Zarina Khan (PW8). From her evidence it is clear that on the fateful night she was on night duty when prosecuterix was brought to the 1250 Hospital in unconscious state without any clothes. On examination she found that prosecuterix''s vagina was torn and hymen ruptured with excessive bleeding (para 6 of her deposition) and victim was sexually assaulted. Evidence of Zarina Khan (PW8) coupled with the extra- judicial confession made to Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW3) in our considered opinion clinches the entire prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubt that

appellant and the appellant alone was the author of reprehensible crime and he was rightly convicted by the trial Court for despoiling her body and virtue leaving a permanent scar in her mental psychology.

The other medical evidence on record is pertaining to treatment and post operative convalescence is not of much help for deciding this appeal.

In view of the foregoing discussion we do not find any merit in this appeal to warrant interference with the impugned judgment. Appeal being without substance is dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant is hereby affirmed. The sentences awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently. However, we further direct that the appellant shall not be entitled to claim and get remission during the period of sentence of imprisonment in view of law laid down in Union of India vs. V. Srihara reported in (2016) 7 SCC 1.

Ordered accordingly.