Vidya Parkash and Another vs The State

Passey, J.—This appeal by Vaidya Parkash and No. 94 of 1952 by Uggar Singh arise out of the same judgment of S. Diali Ram, Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala exercising enhanced powers u/s 30, and Criminal Procedure convicting the former u/s 376, I.P.C. and the latter under Sections 366. 376, 392/397, I. P. C. but they were acquitted of robbery and Vidya Parkash was also acquitted of the offence of abduction. Each of them has been awarded seven years'' rigorous imprisonment for rape and Uggar Singh has been awarded 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 366 in addition.

The facts are these: On (6-12-1951 Mt. Surjit Kaur a young woman of 20 years, and her husband Chand Singh left their village Arthurian for village Rama Nandi where the parents of the former reside. A short while after getting down the train at Mansa they boarded a bus which dropped them at village Bajewala which was a mile distant from Rama Nandi. By that time night had set in, but it was a moonlit night. To cover the remaining journey the couple set out on foot and had hardly gone about 200 karams when they were held up by three persons, two of whom were armed with fire-arms, one holding a pistol and the other a pun. One of the offenders caught Chand Singh by the hair oh his head while the other two held Mt. Surjit Kaur. The offender who had put his hands upon Chand Singh threatened him with death if he tried to rescue his wife and did not leave the place. Chand Singh extricated himself from his grip and ran towards his wife to protect her from her assailants. He was handled roughly and driven back to some distance from Mt. Surjit Kaur.

It is stated that Uggar Singh was armed with a pistol and Vidya Parkash with a gun. To save her, if he could, he made similar efforts several times but he was thrown back each time. Terrified, perplexed and despaired he rushed to Rama Nandi to inform his father-in-law Lai Singh. Near the place she was caught, all the three accused forcibly subjected Mt. Surjit Kaur to sexual intercourse one alter the other and thereafter one of them, namely, Vidya Parkash went away and Uggar Singh and Anr. whose name was later discovered to be Tuli dacoit took her to his village Nangal. After traveling some distance together, Tuli also went away. On entering Nangal Uggar Singh look Mt. Surjit Kaur to one Sham Singh Chamar and requested him to let them stay at his house for the night. That request was not acceded to, as Sham Singh said that his wife would not agree. A ''choragi'' (Ex. P. 3) was, however, lent by him to Uggar Singh. Surjit Kaur was then taken by Uggar Singh to the house of one Gobind Singh and kept there during the night.

On the morning following Uggar Singh and Gobind Singh had some drinks and before noon the former had raped Surjit Kaur thrice. Gobind Singh and Uggar Singh left in in the ''Sabat'' warning her that she would be put to death if she attempted to escape or raise an alarm. Mt. Narain Kaur, mother of Gobind Singh, locked the entrance door of the house to prevent Mt. Surjit Kaur from stepping out. In Ramanandi Lal Singh, Surjit Kaur''s father, on being apprised of her abduction collected some men of his village and set out in pursuit of the offenders. In the meantime help of certain policemen stationed at Bhaman police Chowki had also become available to him. All possible efforts were made to trace out the culprits and rescue her from the clutches of the abductors; but the pursuit party remained unsuccessful. On 7-12-1951 Chand Singh left for Mansa Police Station and by 8 A.M. lodged the first information report there. Mehar Singh P. W. 3, Puran Singh, P. W. 4 and some Ors. were with him at that time After informing the police he left for his village Rahtariana which was far away from Mansa, to carry the news of the calamity that had befallen him, to members of his family.

After the first Information report had been; recorded, Section I. Gurnam Singh P. W. 11 accompanied by Mehar Singh, Puran Singh and Ors. -left for Ramanandi at 9 A.M. On his way he came across the above referred to pursuit party-One Mohna of village Bajewala, who was with the pursuit party, was interrogated by S.I. Gurnam Singh and thereafter Vidya Parkash was arrested. After putting some questions to Vidya Parkash and taking him with him, the investigating officer left for Nangal and reached the; house of Uggar Singh. On finding that the police-had arrived, Uggar Singh scaled over his wall: and ran away; but was overtaken and captured! by Bhag Singh P.C. and brought back to S.I. Gurnam Singh. On interrogation by the investigating officer, he disclosed that he had concealed Mt. Surjit Kaur in the house of Gobind Singh and that he could get her recovered from that place. S.I. Gurnam Singh recorded his statement. (Ex. PC). Uggar Singh then took him to the house of Gobind Singh of which the entrance door was found locked. Mt. Narain Kaur refused to give the key of the lock upon which it was broken open. Mt. Surjit Kaur was found sitting in a corner of the ''Sabat''.

S.I. Gurnam Singh took down her statement and also took into possession the ''Chautahi'' (Ex. P. 3) and the ''Chadar'' (Ex. P. 4) from a cot-where, according to Mt. Surjit Kaur, rape had been committed upon her by Uggar Singh that morning. Surjit Kaur also made over to the investigating officer her ''Salwar'' (Ex. P-l), shirt. (Ex. P-2) which had stains of semen on them.. All the four clothes were sent to the Chemical Examiner whose'' opinion has proved that they were semen-soiled. When Mt. Surjit Kaur was; taken out of the Sabat of Gobind Singh, she-had injuries on her person, about which a note-was made by S.I. Gurnam Singh in Ex. PD. Mt. Surjit Kaur was allowed to go with her father but on the following morning she was sent to-Mansa for medical examination. On her hesitation to submit to examination by a male doctor, she was sent to Dr. Joglnder Kaur at Bhatinda. and was examined by her on 9-12-1951. Marks of violence on her back, breasts and private parts were found present. (After describing the injuries his Lordship proceeded): The vagina and the vulva were found lacerated. In the opinion of Dr. Joginder Kaur Mt. Surjit Kaur had been raped.

Both the Appellants were brought to Mansa. the same day, viz., 7-12-1951 and 8-12-1951 they . were sent to the judicial lock-up. They were advised to cover their faces, as they would be put up for identification. The advice was lowed. The order of the trial Magistrate dated 8-12-1951 shows that when they were produced before him for remand they had their faces covered. On 13-12-1951 a test identification parade was held in the Judicial lock up Mansa under the supervision of Section Har Chand Singh, Magistrate 2nd Class. On that day Chand Singh had arrived from his village Rahtriana. Mt. Surjit Kaur picked up both the culprits, while Chand Singh could put his hands correctly upon Vidya Parkash only.

After completion of the investigation the accused were forwarded for trial with the result as above stated. In proof of their story the prosecutionxamined Mt. Surjit Kaur, Chand Singh, Puran Singh, Mehar Singh, Sham Singh, Guardia Singh Dr. Joginder Kaur, S. Harchand Singh, . Magistrate 2nd Class and S. Gurnam Singh.

The accused denied the charges and produced five witnesses in defence whose evidence was to the effect that both the accused bore good character. Three of the defence witnesses, name by Birdhi, Gokal Chand and Karnail Singh produced by Uggar Singh further stated that he was arrested by the police from his flour mill. Hari Ram and Gujarat Singh examined in his defence by Vidya Parakash stated that at the time of incipient he was working in a flour mill in village Bajewala.

Arguing the case for his client Vidya ParKash Section Uggar Singh contended that besides the Statement of Mt. Surjit Kaur there was no evidence to prove that he had committed rape upon flier. It was also pointed out that the allegation of rape had not been made in the first information-report and it was stressed that it should not be safe to convict the Appellant for the sexual offence, charge about which was very easy to make but extremely difficult to rebut on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Certain authorities were also cited in which the solitary evidence of the woman ravished was held to be not sufficient for entering conviction. The cases referred to by the learned Counsel were decided on their own facts and particular circumstances.

In none of them was it laid down that in no case could a conviction for a sexual offence follow tiles the victim was supported by other independent evidence. The person assaulted is in such cases the most material witness and the acceptance of her story would depend upon how her Statement impresses the Court. If the Court feels without hesitation that the account given by the prosecutrix is veracious and that it is free from those taints that make a witness''s statement difficult of acceptance without reservation, It can proceed to convict the offender as the law does not insist that in every case and under every circumstance, to warrant a conviction, the complainant must be corroborated by other evidence. The guarantee of safety in the matter of depending upon the testimony of a solitary witness, is the satisfaction of the Court.

The rule enunciated by Section Uggar Singh is, in my opinion, undoubtedly a rule of prudence, but not one that can never be departed from. There may be cases in which the woman assaulted is the only person who could depose to the assault upon her and the offence may not be witnessed by any other person. Usually offenders take care to screen their acts and commit them unobserved. It does not mean that because the offence was not witnessed by an independent corroborating witness the offence was not committed, and there was no evidence to prove it.

In - Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan, the question if corroborative evidence was indispensable [n such cases, came up for consideration. It was held by their lordships that there was no rule of practice that there must be, in every case, corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand. The rule which had hardened into one of law was not that corroboration was essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge. In a proper case conviction for an offence u/s 376, I.P.C. or for the matter of at for any offence can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim alone, provided the Judge''s mind is satisfied as to the truthfulness of that testimony. (His Lordship considered the evidence about rape and concluded:)

The statement of Mt. Surjit Kaur having Impressed us as truthful and as free from exaggerations and improvements, we have reached the conclusion that both Vidya Parkash and Uggar Singh had committed rape upon her. We will not refer to the prosecution evidence in support of the charge of robbery; because the accused have been acquitted of that offence and there is no State appeal or private revision before us against that acquittal.

Arguing the case of Uggar Singh, his counsel S. Balder Singh pointed out that the evidence of Sham Singh P. W. was not worthy of credence and that the statement of Uggar Singh (Ex. PC) that was recorded by S.I. Gurnam Singh prior to the recovery of Mt. Surjit Kaur from the house of Gobind Singh was not admissible in evidence, as it contained the accused''s admission of his guilt. We may say here that we do not consider it safe to use the evidence of Sham Singh in determining the guilt of Uggar Singh as the former has for a con severable time been litigating with one or the other member of the latter''s family. Before pointing out the place where Surjit Kaur has been shut up, Uggar Singh had stated to the investigating officer that he had concealed the abducted woman Mt. Surjit Kaur in the house of Gobind Singh s/o Natha Singh Jat and that he could get her recovered from that place. Thists what he said:

Main Surjit Kaur maghvia noon musamml Gobind Singh Beta Natha Singh Jat de ghar sabat which lokaya hoya hai. Bramad karwa sakda hain.

S. Balder Singh''s contention is that the'' words ''Maghvia'' and ''Lokaya hoya hai'' indicate a confession of his guilt by the maker of the statement. We are unable to accept that intepretation. The word ''maghvia'' does not connote that the woman had been abducted by the accused. It only means an abducted woman, and Uggar Singh did not say that he had abducted the woman in which case perhaps that portion would have been liable to be excluded from consideration. Now remains to be considered the question of the admissibility of those words which show that Uggar Singh had concealed Mt. Surjit Kaur in the house of Gobind Singh. For this Sections 25 to 27, Indian Evidence Act have to be adverted to.

According to Section 25 no confession made to a police officer can be proved against a person accused of any offence. There are no provisos to that rule and such a confession, if it is Intended to be used against the maker, would have to be described as inadmissible. Section 26 lays down that a confession made by an accused, not to a police officer but to other persons while he is in the custody of a police officer, cannot be prayed against him unless it has been made in the. immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 which is the relevant section for the purpose of the question raised, provides ah exception to the inadmissibility of certain confessions made to police officers or to other persons while the accused in the custody of the police. The exception relates to the discovery of facts on information disclosed by the accused whether the statement of the accused embodying that information is a confession or not. The section lays down that when a fact is deposed to as discovered in con-Sequence of information received from a person accused of an offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of the information whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved Even a confessional statement would, therefore, in the light of Section 27 be admissible if the existence of the fact disclosed by that statement was first known from the accused, and the fact was relevant to his complicity. Now it is clear from the evidence of Section I. Gurnam. Singh and that of Gurdial Singh, Puran Singh and Mehar Singh P. Ws. that it was the accused who in the first instance gave information of the presence of Mt. Surjit Kaur in the house of Gobind Singh. It was the accused''s statement, therefore, that had put the police in motion and Mt. Surjit Kaur was recovered from the place of her concealment in consequence of the information supplied by him;;. Section 27, Indian Evidence Act came into play in the present case in spite of the fact that the accused had made mention of the concealment of Mt. Surjit Kaur by him.

I am supported in this view by several authorities in which the point was considered and decided similarly. In - ''Empress v. Mela'' 112 Ind Cas 55 (Lah) (B) the accused had made a statement before the police that he had buried a Mat of ''Lahan'' at a particular place and he had produced the Mat containing the Lahan It was held that the statement of the accused that he had buried the Mat at a particular place was admissible in evidence against him in view of the fact that as a result of information supplied by him the Mat of Lahan was discovered by " e police. In - ''Isher Singh v. Emperor'' AIR 1916 Lah 228 (C) the statement of the accused that he had buried a revolver and bullets in his Beld was held to be admissible in evidence under I. 27, Indian Evidence Act as the arms were as covered in consequence of the information given by him. In - ''Mamun v. Emperor'' AIR 1930 Lah 530 (D) the statement made by the ''accused to the police that he had buried the dead body of the murdered person at the place pointed out by him was held to be admissible in evidence u/s 27, Indian Evidence Act for the. purposes of Section 201, I. P. C. although not for convicting him for murder.

In Rama Shidappa v. The State'' AIR 1952 299 (FB) (E) it was held by the Full inch that the statement of the accused with regard to authorship of concealment is admissible evidence u/s 27. The statements of the accused who were more than one in that case that they had concealed or that, they would show the, place where they had concealed the articles Were held to be admissible in evidence. The question referred to the Full Bench in that case was

When a statement made by an accused person while in custody of a police officer is tendered into evidence under the provisions of Section 27, Indian Evidence Action the ground that an article which is concealed and the accused''s knowledge of its whereabouts are discovered in consequence of the statement are words included in the statement with regard to the authorship or concealment, for example, "I have concealed I have hidden or I have kept" admissible in evidence or not.

The question was answered in the affirmative it being held that the statement with regard to the authorship of concealment was admissible in evidence u/s 27. In Kottayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 (F) the accused had made a statement that he would produce a knife concealed in the roof of his house it was held that the statement of the accused led to the discovery of the fact that a knife was concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge; and that if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant

In the present case also, in my opinion, the statement of Uggar Singh that he had concealed Mt. Surjit Kaur in the house of Go bind Singh from where she was recovered pursuant to that information would be admissible in evidence. S. Balder Singh then referred to certain discrepancies in the statement of Chand Singh and Mt. Surjit Kaur with regard to the weapon in the hands of two out of the three offenders, and also with regard to the part played by each of the accused at the time terror was struck in the mind of Chand Singh and Mt. Surjit Kaur was caught hold of. Those discrepancies are on minor points and do not, therefore, affect the prosecution case. It cannot be forgotten that both Mt. Surjit Kaur and Chand Singh were terror-stricken and were extremely perplexed and confused. These discrepancies can, therefore, be safely ignored.

It was next argued that abduction and rape in the case against Uggar Singh were practically one transaction and, therefore, separate convictions for the two offences were not legal. There is no substance in this argument. The three accused had abducted Mt. Surjit Kaur when before committing rape upon her they had taken her out of the protection of her husband. After those offences had been completed, Uggar Singh and Tuli took Mt. Surjit Kaur towards village Nangal. On the way Tuli dropped out but Uggar Singh took her to Nangal and put her in the house of Gobind Singh. This had again completed the act of abduction. On the morning of 7-12-51 Uggar Singh raped her again and this was obviously a distinct offence.

Finally, it was contended that the sentence in the case of Uggar Singh is severe. The trial Magistrate has given cogent reasons for not combining the two sentences into one by making them to run together. Each offence committed by Uggar Singh was of a very heinous type perpetrated upon a defenseless woman. She was raped by each of the accused on the thorough fare and then on the next morning again Uggar Singh ravished her thrice. No indulgence in the matter of sentence thus is called for. The appeals are dismissed.

Gurnam Singh, J.

I agree.