Sukhjit Singh vs State of Haryana

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

Appellant Bant Singh was tried and convicted alongwith his brother Sukhjit Singh, since dead, for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by Sessions Judge, Ambala, and has been sentenced to 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment.

The version factually levelled against him was that on 3rd August, 1983 when Debo was in the fields to cut some grass at about sunset time, she was bodily lifted by the two accused and after being taken in the nearby sugarcane field was raped. According to her, she was made to lie on the ground and string of her salwar was forcibly opened by Sukhjit Singh accused. While Sukhjit Singh committed rape upon her, Bant Singh held her by the arm and placed one hand on her mouth. When the appellant took his turn, Sukhjit Singh kept her pinned down to the ground. As at the time of lifting her she had raised an alarm and even continued to do so while being taken to the sugarcane field, Baljit Singh (PW10) was attracted to the spot. Sukhjit Singh accused is then said to have picked up a kassi which was lying nearby where she was being raped and gave a blow from its wrong side to Baljit Singh. In the meantime another person, namely, Sant Singh also reached the spot. Seeking him, both the accused ran away. She then returned to her house and narrated the incident to her sisterinlaw i.e. brother''s wife Mohindro (PW11). Her brother Ram Jas, who works as a labourer, returned to the house late in the evening. Though Mohikndro had narrated the entire occurrence to him at that time but it was on the next morning that he alongwith Mohindro (PW11) and Debo, the prosecutrix, came to Police Officer. A case was registered against the accused on the basis of the statement of Debo vide First Information Report Exhibit PK. As a result of the investigation that followed, both the brothers were sent up for trial.

Shri Harbans Singh Senior Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant urges with some amount of vehemence that in the light of the medical examination and the findings of the court below about the age of the prosecutrix, implicit faith cannot be placed on the version of the prosecutrix. He points out that as per para 32 of the impugned judgment she has been found to be a girl of more than 18 years of age, though she claim to be 14 years of age at the time of occurrence. Further the medical evidence on record and particularly that of PW2 Dr. Arun Bala clearly establishes that she was used to sexual intercourse as her vagina admitted 2 fingers. Further this doctor did not find any mark of any injury on any part of her body. The learned Counsel further contends that the story of the prosecution in general is also not probable inasmuch as two brothers would not normally join in such a nefarious activity. According to him, it may be that the prosecutrix was having an affair with Sukhjit Singh deceased and on having been surprised by Baljit Singh, there may have been some sort of exchange of blows between two of them i.e. Sukhjit Singh and Baljit Singh (PW10). Concededly Baljit Singh PW had two injuries on his person and similarly Sukhjit Singh had one injury on his person.

Baljit Singh was medically examined by PW1 Dr. Shiv Anand at 2.00 a.m. on 4th August, 1983 i.e. even before the lodging of the First Information Report with the police. He found the following injuries on his person :

A lacerated wound on left parietal zone of scalp. The bleeding was present. Surrounding scalp area was normal.

Two abrasions of size 1 cm x 2 cms each on the middle aspect of right knee. The movement of the right knee was normal.

Similarly Sukhjit Singh deceased was examined by PW3 Dr. V.K. Bansal at 4.00 p.m. on 4th August, 1983 and the following injury was found on his person :

There was lacerated wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm skin deep over lateral aspect of left leg just above the lateral maleous. No fresh bleeding was present. Soft scab was present.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. I find that the case against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The presence of Sukhjit Singh deceased at the time of occurrence may well be taken to have been established on account of the statements of two witnesses i.e. Debo (PW9) and Baljit Singh (PW10) and the presence of the injuries on both i.e. Baljit Singh and Sukhjit Singh deceased. The prosecutrix has been found by PW2 Dr. Arun Bala to be girl who was used to sexual intercourse. The absence of any injury on the body at the time of occurrence also indicates that she probably was a consenting party to the whole affair. For this conclusion of mine I take sustenance from the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Partap Misra and others v. State of Orissa, 1977 CAR 164 (SC) :

"The opinions of medical experts show that it is very difficult for any person to rape singlehanded a grown up and an experienced woman without meeting stiffest possible resistance from her. In the instant case, according to the evidence given by PW1, A1 entered the room and committed sexual intercourse with very great force and violence against her consent. Indeed if this was so, we should have expected the stiffest possible resistance from her resulting in injury over the penis or scortum of the accused or abrasions over other parts of her body caused by the nails of the prosecutrix. The accused were examined by PW9 who did not find any injury over the penis or scrotum and he does not say that he found any injury on any other part of the body. This is rather an importance circumstance which negatives the allegation of rape."

In the instant case too, no injury of the type as referred to above was found on the person of either Sukhjit Singh deceased or the appellant. The mere presence of Sukhjit Singh at the time of occurrence or his having committed intercourse with the prosecutrix does not to my mind establish the case against the appellant. Mr. Harbans Singh, the learned Counsel does not appear to be wrong in submitting that in such matter normally the two brothers would not join hands for such an unholy purpose. Otherwise also as has been indicated above, Baljit Singh PW was examined by a Government doctor at 2 a.m. on 4th August, 1983 i.e. even before the registration of the case against the appellant and still he or anybody else had not come out with the version as has been now disclosed by the prosecution. The First Information Report was recorded in the case after about 12 hours of the occurrence. Though there is some explanation for this belated lodging of the First Information Report as Mohindro (PW11), sisterinlaw of the prosecutrix, had to discuss the whole affair with her husband and the intervention of the night yet the possibility of roping in the appellant as a result of these deliberations can also not be ruled out. It may be that on account of the misbehaviour or misdeeds of Sukhjit Singh, the prosecutrix and her people i.e. Mohindro and her brother have thought of roping in both the brothers for a charge of intercourse with Debo prosecutrix.

For the reason recorded above, the appellant is allowed the benefit of doubt and is thus acquitted of the charge levelled against.