Rajbir vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This judgment would dispose of Criminal Appeals No. 16SB and 122SB of 1986 as they arise out of the same judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

Rajbir appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1164B of 1986 and Phool Kumar appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 122SB. of 1986 were convicted by Shri O.P. Gupta, Sessions Judge, Sonepat under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, vide his order dated 19.12.1986. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed these appeals.

The prosecution case in brief, is that Surinder Kumar PW 1 had a small shop in village Turaqpur and was living there with his wife Recta Devi PW5 prosecutrix, who is about 21 years of age. Both the appellants also belong to the same village.

On 21.5.1985, about 3.00 P.M. Reeta Devi had gone to case herself in the fields and when she had just finished the call of nature, the two appellants came there Rajbir took her in his grip from behind while Phool Kumar gagged her mouth. Both committed rape on her. She was threatened with a knife and prohibited not to tell the incident to anybody.

Reeta Devi came to her house and told her Jethani (husband''s elder brother''s wife) about the incident as Surinder kumar and his brother were away to Delhi. They returned at 7.00/8.00 P.M. The incident was narrated to them. Surinder Kumar got a panchayat convened. Both the appellants were also called there. They both admitted their guilt. The persons who had constituted a committee of 11 respectables imposed a fine of Rs. 500/ each on the appellants. It was also decided that their faces would be blackened and they would be paraded on the donkey backs in the village. The accused appellants paid the fine but did not agree that their faces be blackened and, they be paraded. As such police was informed; appellants were arrested and after investigation they were challaned, tried and convicted as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.

The prosecution in support of its case examined Surinder Kumar PWI who stated that Reeta Devi prosecutrix is his wife and she had told him on 2181985 that she had been raped by the two appellants. He collected the pancchayat which included panchayat members and others and narrated the incident to the panchayat. The panchayat called the appellants and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/ each of them and directed that they be paraded in the village abadi with blackened faces and garlands of shoes in their necks. Before doing so the panchayat had enquired from both the sides and the appellants had admitted their guilt and the panchayat had obtained his signatures as also of both the appellants. As the appellants later on did not comply with the conditions imposed by the pancchayat he informed the police and case was registered,

PW2 Dr. Om Dutt Sharma had medicolegally examined the appellants and found them sexually fit, PW3 Siri Krishan Verma has prepared the scaled site plan.

PW4 Smt. Reeta prosecutrix had given the prosecution case in detail and stated that she was raped by the accused while she had gone to the fields for easing herself.

PW5 Ram Mehar, PW6 Net Ram, PW7 Jogi Ram, PW8 Puran Mal and PW9 Jai Pat are the witnesses of the panchayat, Ram Mehar, Jogi Ram and Puran Mal supported the prosecution case while others two did not. PW10 ASI Joginder Nath is the investigating officers.

After close of the prosecution evidence, the appellants in their statements denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. They examined Shiv Kumar DW1, Zile Singh DW2, Jagat Singh DW3 and Jogi Ram DW4 in their defence. All the DWs stated that the appellants were not present in the village on that day. They also stated about the plea of alibi of the appellants.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records with his help.

The learned counsel has contended that there is great delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecutrix was not medicolegally examined, so the prosecution case is highly doubtful. I have considered the arguments and find myself unable to agree with them.

The incident took place on 2151985. Next day panchayat was convened where the accusedappellants confessed their guilt and the panchayat in its decision imposed a fine of Rs. 500/ on each of them and blackening of their faces, but as the panchayat decision could not be executed so police was informed. No doubt the FIR was registered after a few days but the delay is validly explained and the writing, executed before the panchayat which is signed by the appellants clearly shows that the incident did take place on the day and time as stated by the prosecutrix. The delay, if any, is properly explained.

The fact that the prosecutrix was not medicolegally examined is of no consequence. She is a married lady having a child and no useful purpose would have been served if she had been medicolegally examined after 810 day of the occurrence as the case was registered after more than a week. The nonexamination of the prosecutrix by a doctor does not damage the prosecution case in any manner.

The statement of the prosecutrix and the respectables who had participated in the panchayat very convincingly prove that the accusedappellants had committed the rape and the version given by the prosecution has a ring of truth. I do not find any justification in interfering with the findings of the trial Court. There is no merit in this appeal. The conviction of the appellants is confirmed.

As both the appellants are young men and the incident took place in 1985, I deem it proper to reduce their sentence from four years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine shall, however, remain as it was. With this modification both these appeals are dismissed.