Surinder Singh vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J. (Oral)

The appellantSurinder Singh was tried on the charge of rape punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. in the Court of Mrs. Nirmal Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, and was convicted thereunder and sentenced to suffer three years'' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to suffer further RI for two months.

On 28.1.1986 at about 11.00 a.m. Krishni Devi, aged about 75 years had gone towards the Markanda river for collecting cowdungs. When she was in the process of collecting the cowdungs, appellant Surinder Singh happened to be present there with his two dogs. Surinder Singh pushed Krishni Devi on the ground after throwing her basket of the cowdungs and he criminally assulted her by overpowering her by placing his hand on her mouth. Due to suddenness of the occurrence and the old age, the prosecutrix fell victim to the lust of the appellant. After having been ravished, she returned home to tell about this incident to her daughter, inlaw Jaiyanti Devi, wife of Mam Raj. She did not go out of her house due to shame. Later on, the matter was reported to the police when her statement was recorded which was proved as Exhibits PE and based thereon is the formal FIR Exhibit PE/2, scribed by SI Sant Lal.

3 Smt. Krishni Devi was also subjected to medical examination by the police vide application Exhibit PA at 640 p.m. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared rough siteplan Exhibit PF. During investigation, witnesses were examined. A search was made for . the accused, who was eventually arrested on 13.12.1986 from Barara. He was also got medically examined on the police request Exhibit by Dr. Ramesh Kumar, who prepared his report Exhibit PD/1. Report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner was also obtained, which is Exhibit PC. After completion of investigation, a challan report submitted against the accused under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions and as mentioned earlier, the trial took place before the Additional Sessions Judge, who framed under section 376 IPC and read over the same to the accused, who pleaded not guilt to the charge and claimed to be trial.

In order to bring the guilt home to the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Mrs. Santosh Kumari (PW 1) who had medically examined the prosecutrix; Ramesh Kumar (PW 2) who had medically examined the accused and found nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing the sexual intercourse; prosecutrix Krishni Devi (PW 3), who corroborated the prosecution case; Jagat Ram, Lambardar (PW 4), before whom the prosecutrix had narrated her woeful story regarding her being criminally assaulted by the accused: Mam Raj (PW 5) son of the prosecutrix who led evidence to the effect that on his returning home, from duty, his mother informed about the said incident of rape to him. The panchayat was also convened where the accused was summoned and as per the evidence of the witnesses, the accused had admitted his guilt and ought to be excused. Mangu Ram Sarpanch appeared as PW 6 and corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix regarding the incident, on the basis of the information, which he had received from her. S.I. Ram Lubhaya examined himself as PW 7 and proved the investigation of the case. Jagmohan Lal Patwari appeared as PW 8, who had prepared the scaled siteplan Exhibit PJ of the place of occurrence.

The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C and the stand of the accused was that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Mam Raj, son of Krishni Devi, in connivance with the Lambardar and Sarpanch of the village. According to him, Mam Raj owed a sum of Rs. 2,000/ to the father of the accused, which he did not pay despite demands and in order to get rid of the said amount of loan, he has got this false case registered through his mother.

The accused also led evidence in defence by examining Mangal Singh (DW 1), who is none else but the brother of the sister of the accused/appellant. He has been examined to prove the plea of alibi of the accused.

The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence and particularly the statement of the prosecutrix was worthy of belief and that the alibi taken by the accused was not substantiated by the defence evidence. That being so, the learned trial Judge held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, convicted him thereunder and after hearing him on the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer three years'' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/, as mentioned earlier.

The learned counsel for the appellant has laid great stress on the point that there was no corroboration of the allegation of rape either from the circumstances in which the offence is said to have been committed or from the medical evidence and the evidence of the Chemical Examiner. No semen was found on the vaginal swab and the smear, which was taken from the prosecutrix. There was no reliable evidence apart from the statement of the prosecutrix that she had been raped. He has also pointed out that it seems highly improbable that the appellant, who is a married person with children and aged about 35 years, would indulge in criminally assaulting and committing rape upon an elderly woman like the prosecutrix Krishni Devil who is aged around 75/80 years.

As against it the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana has pointed out that the statement of the prosecutrix deserves to be given due weight and she would not stake her honour without any basis and falsely implicate the accused of committing rape upon her. He has also submitted that as a matter of fact, at first the prosecutrix tried to bring this matter to ''the notice of the Lambardar and the Sarpanch of the village and made an attempt to convene a panchayat to sort out that matter and it was subsequently that the matter was reported to the police. He has further submitted that corroboration is not needed in each and every case and as a matter of fact, there are no valid reasons to discard the sworn testimony of Smt. Krishni Devi.

After going through the judgment of the learned trial Judge, who has taken pains to refer to the evidence on record and discuss the same, I find that there are no reasons to ignore the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix, an old woman aged about 75/80 years. It is difficult to believe that merely because her son Mam Raj owed some money to the father of the accused, and who was not paying it despite demands, Smt. Krishni Devi would come up with such an allegation against the accused to enable her son to get rid of the amount of loan. This suggestion deserves to be rejected outright and in my considered view, the learned trial Judge has rightly repelled this contention.

So far as the plea of alibi is concerned, the evidence of the defence witness does not carry conviction. The defence witness, as already mentioned earlier, is the real brotherinlaw of the appellant and he has entered the witness box just to bail out the accused/appellant out of this tight spot. The evidence of the Lamberdar and the Sarpanch to show that the prosecutrix made prompt references law. To them about this incident. The trial Court has, 4. rightly held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and has rightly convicted and sentenced him thereunder. No ference is called for in the quantum of sentence either.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.