Meer Singh vs The State of Haryana

Nirmal Singh, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.5.1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- u/s 363 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- u/s 366 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000 u/s 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

In succinct, the prosecution story is that the parents of Mst. Mewa prosecutrix went to village Narheri in connection with their job for collecting grains etc.. The prosecutrix came to her house after grazing the goats in the forest. The appellant went to the house of the prosecutrix and said that her mother was calling her in the khata for taking the bag of grant. She went to the khata but she did not find her mother there. When she was coming back, the appellant met her on the way and said that her mother was sitting on the naka. The appellant offered his help to take Mst. Mewa prosecutrix to her mother on his bicycle. She sat on the carrier of the bicycle of the appellant who took her towards the forest. After they had travelled 20-25 fields from their village, the appellant stopped his bicycle and caught hold of her and put her on the ground. He penetrated his private part into her private part and committed rape upon her. She raised alarm. The appellant gagged her mouth and also gave slaps, Jagroop-uncle in relationship came there and then the appellant ran away towards the side of Baba ji. The prosecutrix narrated the entire story to Jagroop. She was sent to her house by Jagroop, her uncle, and he himself went to bring her parents. When her parents came alongwith Jagroop, she also narrated the whole occurrence to them. She was taken by them to police station Nangal Choudhary, where she made statement Ex. PG before the investigator. She was also medically examined. After the completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the illaqa magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the illaqa magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On commitment, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Kishori Lal Patwari as PW-1, Shish Pal Constable as PW-2, Dr. Vinay Choudhary as PW-3, Dr. Vinay Bansal as PW-4, Dr. Nirmla Bishnoi as PW-5, Dr. R.A. Yadav as PW-6, Mst. Mewa as PW 7, Smt. Chanderkala as PW-8 and Bhoop Singh SI as PW-9.

When the appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied simplicitor and pleaded false implication. The appellant was called to lead evidence in defence but he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

After recording the evidence of the prosecution, hearing the counsel for the appellant and Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of the judgment, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred.

Shri K.K. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel raised two fold contentions. The first contention is that the prosecution has not examined the material witness Jagroop. He contended that as per the allegations of the prosecution, after the occurrence Mst. Mewa-Prosecutrix narrated the entire occurrence to Jagroop who is uncle in relation of the prosecutrix but this material witness has not been examined by the prosecution. He contended that non-examination of the material witness makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant but find the same without any substance.

It is not the quantity but quality of the evidence which is to be seen. There is no law that the conviction can not be sustained on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix in a rape case, if the evidence is worth reliance. Mst. Mewa prosecutrix has given the minute detail regarding the date, time, place and manner in which this occurrence has taken place. The prosecutrix has been cross-examined at length by the defence but nothing favourable came to the defence to discard the statement of Mewa-Prosecutrix. There is no motive on the part of the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the appellant, so, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that Jagroop PW has not been examined stands repelled.

The next contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that it is a consent case. He contended that Mewa prosecutrix went with the appellant voluntarily and sat on the bicycle of the appellant. When she was away her parents had gone to attend to their work in another village. He further contended that as per the ossification test conducted by Dr. Vinay Chaudhary PW-3, the age of the prosecutrix was between 15-17 years and there is possibility of error in the age upto plus and minus 3 years. He contended that the prosecutrix was of the age of 20 years.

The submission made by the counsel for the appellant is without any foundation. From the evidence on record, it is established that it is not a case of consent rather from the evidence of PW-5 Dr. Nirmla Bishnoi who has conducted the MLR of prosecutrix Mewa, it is established that it is a case of rape and intercourse is not with consent. The Doctor has observed as under:-

i) Few pubic heirs were present with dried blood stained. They were preserved for chemical examination.

ii) Scrapping of external genitals not allowed by the victim.

iii) No sign of inflammation, redness, swelling were present over external genitals.

iv) Slight laceration was present on the posterior part of hymen. That was painful off touching and slight bleeding was present.

v) The size or vaginal orifice admitted one finger loose and two fingers tight.

vi) Scratches of finger nails found over perineum.

The doctor has opined that it was case of rape. Mewa-Prosecutrix also deposed in her statement that when she came back after grazing goats to her house, appellant came to her house. He told that she was being called by her mother where she has been working as labourer to assist her. She went all alone to that place where her mother was working but she did not find her there. She came back. Before she reached the house, the appellant met her on the way and told her that her mother was waiting for her at naka. She then sat on the carrier of the appellant''s cycle. After they had travelled 20-25 fields from the village, the appellant stopped his cycle and caught hold of her and put her on the ground. He penetrated his private part into her private part and committed rape upon her. She raised noise but the appellant gagged her mouth and also gave her 3-4 slaps. She was wearing at that time an underwear and salwar. The appellant gave bites on her cheeks. The version given by Mst. Mewa has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence. From the evidence, it is fully established that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent and against her will. If the prosecutrix had given her consent then there would have been no marks rather it shows that the prosecutrix and resisted.

From the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellant u/s 363, 366 and 376 IPC for which the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant.

As regards the sentence, the learned trial court has awarded minimum sentence prescribed u/s 376 IPC, therefore, no interference is required on the quantum of sentence also.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal stands dismissed.