Ganpat Lal @ Atmaram vs State

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Vide impugned judgment dated 12.6.2015 the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 177 IPC. For the former offence, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and pay fine in sum of

Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for a period of six months. For the latter offence, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and pay fine in sum of ₹200/-, in default to undergo SI for a period of seven days. Both sentences were to run concurrently.

As per jail record, the appellant has undergone actual sentence of 5 years 8 months and 28 days as of 30.1.2019. He has earned remissions for 4 months and 22 days. The sentence would therefore be 6 years 1 month and 20 days.

The case of the prosecution is that on 2.5.2013 at 9.00 AM the appellant raped the prosecutrix in his house. He was arrested on the same day at 5.30 PM. The pyjama which he was wearing as per seizure memo Ex.P-8 when sent for forensic examination alognwith the ghagra of the prosecutrix which was seized vide Ex.P-3, was detected with semen. Semen was also detected on the ghagra of the prosecutrix.

From the testimony of the prosecutrix PW5, her father-in-law PW1 and her husband PW2, it is apparent that the appellant was either a Tantrik or a quack. The prosecutrix was not able to conceive and that is why her husband and her in-laws took her to the appellant. The version of the three is common. On the day of the incident the prosecutrix accompanied by her husband and her father-in-law reached the house of the appellant. He took her inside a room and told her husband and her father-in-law to wait outside. As time lapsed they became suspicious and pushed open the door. They were horrified to see that the appellant had raped the prosecutrix.

The prosecutrix, who appeared as PW5 has also supported the case of the prosecution.

It is true that the medical examination report Ex.P-5 of the prosecutrix does not show any evidence of struggle or recent intercourse but the same is immaterial for the reason the prosecutrix was married and was habituated to sex. The lady was taken by her husband and her father-in-law to the appellant on the belief that the appellant would cure her and she would be able to conceive a child.

The testimony of the prosecutrix shows that to hoodwink the prosecutrix the appellant had got turmeric and aloevera and also oil. He rubbed the three on her hands and her stomach. The appellant instructed the prosecutrix to do what he told her to do.

He asked where to kiss her. All of sudden he raped her.

The fact that semen was detected on the ghagra of the prosecutrix which was seized by the investigating officer soon after the FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged at 1.00 PM and semen was also detected on the pyjama of the appellant, I find corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix.

Regarding the offence punishable under Section 177 IPC, suffice it to state that the appellant gave a wrong name and wrong address to the investigating officer which attracted the Section 177 IPC.

Faced with the testimony afore-noted learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no evidence of other criminal activity of the appellant and prays for reduction in the sentence because the appellant is a married man.

In view of the backdrop facts noted hereinabove noting that the date of incident is 2.5.2013, maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, I reduce the sentence to seven years RI and direct compensation to be paid by the appellant to the prosecutrix in sum of ₹50,000/-. The fine imposed for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is maintained. The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 177 IPC are also maintained. The sentences will run concurrently.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.