Jita alias Surjit Singh vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Jita alias Surjit Singh, aged about 17 years (as per medical evidence) stands convicted and sentenced to two years R.I. under section 387 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code and to six months rigorous imprisonment under section 325, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge Ambala by his order dated 24th March, 1991. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case is that Maya Devi PW4 a married lady, aged about 2324 years, who was in an advanced surge of pregnancy had come to stay with her parents at village Kurbanpur on 12th December, 1990 at about 10 or 11 a.m. when she went to the field of Atma Rant to answer the call of nature, the appellant suddenly appeared there. He took him to his grip, failed her on the ground and placed himself upon her with a view to commit rape on her. The prosecutrix Maya Devi entreated him not to behave with her in that manner as she was at a very advanced stage of pregnancy and would lose her life if raped. But the appellant did not desist and in that process he pressed her mouth with both his hands which resulted in the dislocation of her jaws. He tried to gag her mouth with her shawl so that she did not raise an alarm. During the process of her resistance she received abdominal injuries also. On hearing her cries, Inderjit and Inder PWS came to the spot and sighting them, the accused made good his escape.

F.I.R., Ex. PF/1 was recorded at 1045 p.m. on the same day at Police Station Saddar Ambala, on the statement Ex. PF of Maya Devi, prosecutrix recorded by ASI Sohan Singh PW8 at Police Post Naggal at 10. 45 p.m. Maya Devi, prosecutrix was medically examined on 13th December, 1980 at 5.20 a.m, by Dr. V. K. Bansal PW2 who found the following injuries on her person :

(1) Suspected displacement of mandible and xray of fate was advised both PA affirateal view. Patient complained of acute pain, inability to close the mouth.

(2) Abrasion 1/8'' on the left side of the forearm, four fingers above the left wrist joint on its medial side. Reddish in colour.

(3) Abrasion 1/4'' x 1/4" on the medial side of the right arm, 5 fingers above the right elbow joint reddish in colour.

Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and xray advised while injuries No. 2 and 3, in the opinion of the doctor were simple in nature. The duration of the injuries was opined to be within 24 hours, having been caused by a blunt weapon. On receipt of xray report the said doctor described injury No. 1 as grievous in nature, Dr. Y. K. Bajaj PW1 who radiologically examined Maya Devi proved that there was dislocation of both temporal mandibule joints.

The appellant on medical extermination conducted by Dr. R. S. Chaudhri P. 9 3 on 15th December, 1993 was found to be of IS years and fit to perform sexual intercourse.

The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt to the accused relied on the discussed medical evidence besides the testimony of the prosecutrix Maya Devi PW4 and PW5 Inderjit who deposed about the prosecution case in the manner stated earlier. PW8 Sohan Singh AIS is the main investigating officer in the case. PW6 Hari Chand Patwari who prepared the site plan Ex. PH in respect of the spot and PW9 Hari Ram, SHO, who recorded the formal first information report are formal witnesses. PW7 Rajinder Kumar is the Headmaster of the Government Primary School, Kurbanpur, who proved the date of birth of Surjit Singh appellant being 15 March, 1963 from the school record.

The accused when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, came with the following version.

I have been working as a cosherd boy with Gobinda. There was a fight between the cattle. Maya Devi was hit by some cattle and she fell on the ground and received injuries. Compensation was demanded from me by father of Maya Devi "and on my inability to pay I have been falsely implicated in this case."

The learned trial judge on the basis of the material placed before it convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated earlier and hence this appeal.

Mr. Kundu, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the offences not fall within the mischief of sections 376 read with section 511, the Indian Penal Code, but an offence under section 354, IPC is made out. In support he relies on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babu Lal, AIR 1960 IMP 135 where the facts. were that the accused had made the prosecutrix naked and ran away on seeing the PWS. He has further cited Sittu v. State, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 149 where also the view taken in Babu Lars case (supra) was affirmed. I do not think that the ratio of these authorities is application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the appellant did his utmost to commit rare and it was due to the resistance offered by the prosecutrix that he did not succeed to accomplish his desire. He even went to the tenant of breaking the jaws of the hapless lady in the course or his attempt at rape. In my view the offence under section 376 read with section 511, and section 325 I.P.C., stands amply proved. The defence plea that there was a fight between the cattle which hit the prosecutrix and she fell down and received the injuries is, on the fact of it, preposterous. The prosecutrix is a respectable lady and would be the last person to level such an allegation so as to disgrace herself, had she, in fact, not received the injuries in the manner narrated by the prosecution.

The first information report in the case was lodged within no time. PW4 Maya Devi, prosecutrix, the principal witness has supported the prosecution case in its entirety, PW5 Inderjit, an eyewitness to the occurrence, provided due corroboration to the prosecution case. Then there is the medical evidence which fully supports the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is well merited.

Mr. Kundu then brought to my notice that the appellant is a young lad of 15/16 years and he is not a previous convict. He prayed that the ends of justice will be fully met if the sentence is reduced. Taking all the above facts and circumstances into account I am inclined to accept the prayer for the reduction of the sentence. Accordingly. I reduce the sentence of the appellant to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 376 read with section 511 IPC. His conviction thereunder as also the conviction and sentence under S. 325 IPC are maintained. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal fails and is herein dismissed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.