Ramu and anr. vs State of Haryana

J.B. Garg, J.

Ramu son of Puran Bahadur, resident of Ballabgarh has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by Sh. C.R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad on 25.7.1991 and sentences to RI for a period of 10 years and be was also required to, pay a fine 500/. In default of payment of fine he was required to undergo RI for a period of 5 months. He has also been convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for a period of 5 years and required to pay a fine Rs. 300/. In default of payment of fine he was required to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The sentenced mere ordered to run concurrently.

His sister Bhagwati too has been convicted for an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for a period of 3 years and also required to pay a fine of As. 300/. In default of payment of fine she was required to undergo R.I. for a period of three months.

The present appeal has been attempted by Ramu as well as his sister Bhagwati.

Briefly, the story of the prosecution is that Ramu was employed in a nearby factory and residing in a rented premises in Bhikam Colony, Ballabhgarh An the neighbourhood of Santosh, the prosecutrix, who was a studnet of 8th, Class in the Government Girls High School, Ballabhgarh. On the pretext of providing now clothes and that he would marry her the accused Ramu, Santosh along with him on 20.1.1991 at 7 a.m. when she was going to the house of her teacher for learning a lesson on tution. After taking her to his rented premises he committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter she was taken in a bus to Delhi with the assistance of his sister Bhagwati. From Delhi Santosh was taken to Patna by Bhagwati, At Patna, Rewati, a sister of Bhagwati became angry as to why Santosh was brought there and as a consequence thereof Bhagwati brought her back to Delhi. At Delhi bus stop Ramu accused met Bhagwati and Santosh and he was about to take Santosh to a particular place known to him for performing marriage but the police apprehended them. She was examined by a Medical Officer at Ballabhgarh.

PW2 Smt. Raj Wadhwa, a teacher of Government Girls High School, Ballabgarh, has deposed that Santosh daughter of Som Nath Driver, was admitted in their school on 5111990 in 8th class and her date of birth found, to be mentioned as 26.1.1978. This date of birth was verified from the transfer certificate which, was issued by Govt. Girls High School, Gandhi Nagar; Rohtak where, Santosh was residing earlier.

PW4 Dr. Anita Bansal, Medical Officer of General Hospital, Ballabgarh, examined Santosh aged 14, on 24.1.1991 at 9.05 p.m. and has opined that Santosh was found habitual to sexual intercourse and that her age was 14.

PW5 Dr. V.K. Aggarwal, Radiologist of B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, who conducted the radiological test on 29.1.1991 has opined that the age of Santosh was between 14 and l41/2 years.

PW6 Santosh the prosecutrix, has stated on oath the entire story in the trial Court when she was examined on 1.7.1991 and has specifically said that Ramu accused committed sexual intercourse in the rented premises occupied by him in Sham Colony, Ballabgarh and, thereafter, the room was locked from outside and the accused came back at about 7.00 p.m., She his further said that Bhagwati, the sister of the accused, gave her some new clothes and with her help she accompanied Ramu in bus to Delhi. She has also said that she did cry when the accused locked in the room but none came forward for her help, She has denied that the accused did not commit sexual intercourse with her or that she as not taken to Delhi or Patna or that her age was 17 or 18 years.

PW7 is Smt. Nirmala wife of Som Nath, the mother of the prosecutrix. She has described that her eldest daughter is Pushpa and she is aged 18 whereas Santosh the prosecutrix is the fourth daughter. She started search for her daughter Santosh who had not returned from the premises of her tutor. Her husband lodged a report with the police.

PW8 Shri S.K. Goyal, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, recorded the statement of Santosh prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on oath, which is Ex. PK, on 25.1.1991.

PW9 Som Nath is the father of the prosecutrix, who lodged the FIR Ex. PL. at Police Station Ballabgarh on 21.1.1991. Santosh was recovered on 24.1.1991 by PW 10 Shri Raj Singh ASI.

The evidence of PW6 Santosh, the prosecutrix, establishes that she was subjected to illicit intercourse by Ram accused. PW7 Nirmala the mother of Santosh has explained that she has four daughters. The eldest is Darshana and she is aged 19 and that there was a differnence of about 11/2 years amongst the four daughters. This is corroborated by the evidence of PW5 Dr. V.K. Aggarwal, who after radiological examination, has assessed the age of the proseuctrix between 14 and 141/2 years. This is further corroborated by the entry in the record of the school proved by PW2 Suit. Raj Wadhwa, a Teacher of the Government Girls High School, Ballabgarh, which shows that her date of birth was 26.1.1978 whereas the date of the occurrence was 20.1.1991.

There is a bare denial by Ramu accused, who was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and the plea that he has been falsely implicated, is not plausible, in the circumstances of the case.

As regard Bhagwati appellant, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel on her behalf that she was not named even in the FIR and she was not present when her brother brought Santosh from the street when she was going to the house of a teacher. This Bhagwati appellant is given benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and she is hereby acquitted. The amount of fine, if paid be refunded to her.

The case against Ramu appellant finds support from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sunder Lal, 1962 Cri LJ 2319, where the age of the rosecutrix was 13 and the conviction for offences under Sections 366 and 76 of the Indian Penal Rode was affirmed and in fact in the case now in and, the identity of the accused was not disputed. The finding of guilt against Ramu appellant is hereby affirmed. However, as regards the quantum of sentence, the period of sentence under Section 376 IPC is educed to 5 years RI. As regards the substantive sentence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code it is reduced to 2 years RI. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence of fine shall, however, remain unchanged.

With the above modifications, the appeal stands disposed of.