Hari Singh Banshilal Yadav vs State of M.P.

S.P. Khare, J.

Appellant Hari Singh has been convicted u/s 376 Indian Penal Code for committing rape on his step daughter aged about 13 years and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

The prosecution case was that on 1-3-1996 Sarita (PW3) was sleeping with her mother Shantibai (PW2) in her house in Jehangirabad, Bhopal. At about 11.00 P.M. the accused awoke her and took her to his cot. He took out her salwar and committed rape on her. She resisted but the accused did not leave her. He gagged her mouth and threatened to kill her if she would shout. Next day, she lodged the report Ex.P-3 at Mahila Police Station. She was sent for medical examination. Dr. Abha Jindal (PW1) examined her and found her hymen torn on right lateral side. There was bruise around hymen and the area was inflammed. Her report is Ex.P.1. After investigation the charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he has been falsely implicated because he refused to pay the amount of compensation of the gas tragedy to the mother of his wife.

The Trial Court held that Sarita (PW3) was less than fourteen years of age and the accused had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The accused has been convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset.

In this appeal, it has been argued that Shantibai (PW2), the mother of the prosecutrix has not supported the version of the prosecutrix and in the absence of corroboration from independent source qua the accused, he could not be convicted for this grave offence. It is pointed out that fouler the crime greater should be the proof.

The evidence on record has been scanned by this Court. Sarita (PW3) has deposed that she was sleeping with her mother in the night. The accused, her step-father, came to her and took her to his bed. He took out her salwar and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. She had pain and her vagina started bleeding. She started crying but the accused threatened to cause her death if she did so. He intimidated her mother also. Next day, she went to her grandmother and then she went to the Police Station and lodged the report Ex.P-3. Dr. Abha Jindal (PW1) has testified that she examined Sarita (PW3) on 2-3-1996 and recorded her findings as stated above. Her salwar was blood stained. The medical report is Ex.P-1. Shantibai (PW2) has been declared hostile as she has not supported the prosecution case. According to her evidence, Sarita (PW3) is her daughter from her former husband Hari Prasad. She was deserted by him seven years ago. She remarried with accused Hari Singh and is living with him. She has two children from him also. The reason for her turning volte-face is not far to seek. She is on the horns of dilemma. She has preferred to make an attempt to save her husband on whom she and her children are dependent. She is not possessed of that moral fibre which could enable her to speak the truth. She has resiled from her statement Ex.P-2 made to the police u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code.

The testimony of Sarita (PW3) is fully reliable and is corroborated by her F.I.R. and the medical report. She had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The suggestion made on behalf of the defence that she has made the report at the behest of her maternal uncle and grandmother is absurd and preposterous. Aroused by erotic impulse the accused committed this most hated crime. He subjected this girl of tender age to his lust. He is a man of depraved moral character and had no qualm of conscious. He ravished his step daughter much below the age of 16 years. She must have undergone the trauma of a deep sense of deathless shame. To insist corroboration in such a case when her mother has turned hostile is to add insult to the injury. Her corroboration is not a sine-qua-non.

The Supreme Court has observed in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and Others, that the testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The evidence of a victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape.

In the present case, the testimony of Sarita (PW3) inspires full confidence and to a great extent finds reassurance from the prompt FIR and the medical evidence. The libidinous conduct of the accused is unpardonable. "A rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female." The present case is of extreme category where the accused molested his step daughter of tender age exhibiting his beastliness. His act was brutal, savage and swayed by animal propensity. The girl must have been pushed into deep emotional crises by the onslaught of the accused. He had rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court which acted with "utmost sensitivity" as insisted upon by recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gangula Satya Murthy, . The sentence cannot be said to be disproportionate to the crime. The appeal is dismissed.