Tikka Ram alias Lala vs State of Haryana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Sessions case No. 18 of 15.1.1993, dated December 15/17, 1993.

The accused was tried for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case of the prosecution, prosecutrix Sharmila had gone to the fields of Ude for cutting grass on 5.9.1992. At about 11.00 a.m. the accused came there and tied the mouth of Sharmila with Dupatta and hands and feet with Chaddar. The accused broke the string of her Salwar and committed the rape upon her person forcibly and without her consent. She was able to open the Dupatta tied on her mouth and raised noise whereupon on hearing her noise, Wazir and Narain came there. On seeing them, the accused fled away. Sharmila narrated the whole incident to Wazir and Narain Singh. On reaching home, she narrated the occurrence to her mother who further narrated the incident to the paternal uncle of the prosecutrix Sharmila. Later on, he met the Sarpanch of the village. Then the Sarpanch convened a Panchayat and asked the accused and his parents to attend the Panchayat but the accused did not care to appear in the Panchayat. Then a report was lodged with the Police under Ex. PK. In pursuance of the same, a case was registered against the accused on 11.9.1992 in F.I.R. No. 271 in the Police Station Jhajjar under Section 376 IPC. The investigation was taken up and the prosecutrix was medicolegally examined. The accused was arrested on 18.9.1992 and in pursuance of the statement of the prosecutrix, the underwear which she was wearing at the time of incident, was recovered. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the accused. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for an offence under Section 376 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked documents. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was called upon to enter in defence. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC and after rehearing the accused on the quantum of sentence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the accused preferred the above appeal.

According to the case of the prosecution the accused committed rape on Sharmila on 5.9.1992 at about 11.00 a.m. when she went to the fields to fetch the grass. The F.I.R. was registered on 11.9.1992 though the offence was stated to have taken place on 5.9.1992. Thus, there was delay of six days in lodging the complaint. The learned counsel for the accusedappellant argued that the delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R. is fatal to the case and therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. But the prosecution explained the delay by saying that the matter was reported to the Sarpanch of the village and the Sarpanch convened a Panchayat 3/4 times and when the accused did not turn up in the Panchayat, then report had been lodged ultimately. P.W.6 is the prosecutrix. She deposed that after the occurrence, she narrated the whole incident to her mother who in turn narrated the same to the paternal uncle of the prosecutrix. She further stated that the Panchayat was held in the village which continued for about 3/4 days. There is no suggestion to the witness that no Panchayat took place except the suggestion that no occurrence as alleged ever took place and that she got registered a false case against the accused at the instance of her paternal uncle. The Sarpanch of the village was examined as P.W.7. He deposed that on 6.9.1992, Ude, uncle of the prosecutrix Sharmila came to his residence and told him that the accused has committed the offence of rape upon the person of Sharmila and in the evening a Panchayat was convened and it was decided that the accused be summoned alongwith his parents. The father of the accused came to the Panchayat but the accused did not come. However, the father of the accused promised to produce him the next day within 24 hours. A Panchayat was held on the next day and then thereafter on 2/3 days continuously. The accused did not come in the Panchayat. After this, the Panchayat told Ude to take action against the accused as per the law. A suggestion was put to this witness that Prabhu, uncle of the accused contested election of Sarpanch against him and because of his enmity, he got the case instituted against the accused and he deposed falsely. It is also suggested to P.W.7 that no Panchayat was ever convened. P.W.9 who is the paternal uncle of the prosecutrix also deposed that on coming to know about the incident from the mother of the prosecutrix, he requested the village Sarpanch to convene a Panchayat and accordingly a panchayat was convened but the accused did not turn up in the panchayat. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied that any Panchayat was held. The Sarpanch clearly stated that the father of the accused attended the Panchayat. There was no reason for the accused for not examining his father. Thus, delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the prosecution and is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix. It is amply supported by medical evidence and the testimony of the prosecutrix. P.W.2 who is the Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Jhajjar deposed that he examined Sharmila on 11.9.1992 and found an abrasion, skin was pealed off at distal phalanx of left thumb, size 4 cm long x 2.5 wide. He further deposed that hymen had fresh tags which did not bleed on touch and admitted only one finger. There was redness around the vulva. He opined that the possibility of rape could not be ruled out. He further stated after obtaining a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory he can only say that it was a case of rape. The medical evidence shows that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. P.W.3 who is the medical officer in C.H.C. Jhajjar also deposed that he examined the accused and found him capable of performing physical sexual intercourse.

The evidence of P.W.5 who is the Head Teacher, Primary School, Nimana, shows that Sharmila was a student of Primary School, Nimana and that she born on 2.2.1978. Ex.PJ is the certificate issued by the school.

P.W.6 is the prosecutrix. She deposed that on 5.9.1992, she went to the fields of Ude Singh, her paternal uncle for cutting the grass. At about 11.00 a.m. the accused came there and tied her mouth with Dupatta and then tied her hands and feet with Chaddar and broke the string of the Salwar and committed rape forcibly without her consent and that she was able to remove the Dupatta from her mouth and raised noise Bachao Bachao. Then Wazir and Narain came there and on seeing them the accused fled away and she narrated the whole incident to Wazir Singh and Narain Singh. Thereafter, she came to the house and narrated the whole story to her mother. P.W.8 Narain Singh deposed that on 5.9.1992, he was present in his field. Near his field, Balraj was also present. Wazir was also present at the kotha of tubewell of Mann Singh who called him there and at about 11.00 a.m. he heard the noise from the side of his fields Bachao Bachao and then he himself ran towards the fields, they saw the accused running. On reaching the spot, they saw that Sharmila was lying on the ground with tied hands and the string of her salwar was also broken. Then they untied the hands of Sharmila and then the prosecutrix told them that the accused has committed rape on her person. Thus the evidence of P.W.6 is amply corroborated by the medical evidence and also the testimony of Narain Singh, P.W.8. A close reading of their evidence and the whole record shows that she was born on 2.2.1978. The offence was committed on 5.9.1992. Thus it is clear that the prosecutrix was only of about 15 years of age. On a consideration of the evidence on record, I do not find any ground warranting interference in the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/. The accused committed rape on a young unmarried girl of 15 years when she was alone working in the fields. I do not find any extenuating circumstances to reduce the sentence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.