Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1262 (PNJ)

Gajjan Singh v. State Of Haryana

2002-11-20

R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. Shri Gajjan Singh has filed the present criminal appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 3.2.1989 and order dated 1.3.1989 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, who convicted the appellant under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Smt. Samso Devi (PW5) gave a statement before SI Om Parkash on 8.3.1988 that on 7.3.1988 at about 2.00 p.m. she went to ease herself in the nearby fields which are at a distance of 200 yards from her house. After easing herself she stood up. The appellant came there and fell her down and forcibly committed rape upon her. At that time the appellant was wearing a red shirt and an underwear. She tried to rescue herself but the appellant put his had on her mouth. After committing rape the appellant went away towards the fields. It has also been stated by the prosecutrix that her pendal, bali and koka had fallen on the ground. She came again to the spot from her house. Her pendal and Bali were found but koka was found missing. After going to her house she narrated the entire occurrence to her mother-in-law Nikki Devi (PW6) who convened a Panchayat on the same day. The appellant was called there and he told the Panchayat members that whatever he wanted to do he had done and that the would not compromise and the Panchayat could do whatever it liked. On the next day, Samso Devi along with her brother Duni Chand and her husband Om Parkash besides one Des Raj came to Police Station, Pinjore and lodged the report. She was got medico-legally examined in the civil hospital on 9.3.1988 at 8.55 a.m. The appellant was apprehended and was got medico-legally examined by PW 1 Dr. Prajesh Khera who found him capable of committing sexual intercourse. The clothes of the prosecutrix were sent to the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. She was got medico-legally examined in the civil hospital on 9.3.1988 at 8.55 a.m. The appellant was apprehended and was got medico-legally examined by PW 1 Dr. Prajesh Khera who found him capable of committing sexual intercourse. The clothes of the prosecutrix were sent to the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. After receiving the report of the FSL and after completion of the investigation the appellant was challaned under Section 376 I.P.C. in the court of Area Magistrate who supplied the copies of documents to the appellant and vide commitment order dated 12.5.1988 committed the appellant to the Court of Session. 3. The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 4. In order to prove the charge the prosecution examined Dr. Prajesh Khera as PW1, who medico-legally examined the appellant and issued MLR Ex. PA vide which the appellant was declared fit to perform sexual intercourse. PW2 is the Charan Singh, Revenue Patwari, who prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PC of the place of occurrence in the presence of prosecutrix Samso Devi. PW3 is SI Parmal Singh, who partly investigated this case and recorded the statements of few witnesses. The story of the prosecution mainly relies upon the prosecutrix whose testimony has been corroborated by PW6 Nikki Devi. PW7 is Des Raj who was present when the Panchayat was convened in which the appellant was summoned. According to his witness the appellant stated before the Panchayat the he had quenched his thirst and the Panchayat can do whatever it likes. PW8 is Dr. Saroj Bala, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kalka, who medico-legally examined the prosecutrix on 9.3.1988 at 8.55 a.m. and issued MLR Ex. PH. According to this witness, she also found some discharge over the underwear of the prosecutrix. However, there was no injury on the person of the prosecutrix. PW9 is SI Om Parkash, who conducted the main investigation in this case. 5. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the appellant. He denied those circumstances and stated that in the earlier panchayat elections Khushi Ram and Palak Ram were candidates. 5. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the appellant. He denied those circumstances and stated that in the earlier panchayat elections Khushi Ram and Palak Ram were candidates. He sided Palak Ram with the result that the other party got annoyed and due to that reason he was got falsely implicated in this case. 6. When called upon to enter into defence the appellant did not examine any evidence. 7. The learned trial Court believed the story of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 9. The learned senior counsel submitted at the first instance that the evidence of the prosecutrix should not be believed as her testimony is in contradiction with the statement of her mother-in-law Nikki Devi. Elaborating his submission the learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecutrix, after the commisison of rape she again went to the place of occurrence in order to find out her ear ring and nose ring, but according to PW6 Nikki Devi the prosceutrix did not go to the place of occurrence. This discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally irrelevant. Smt. Samso Devi is the prosecutrix. Her testimony is fully corroborated by the testimony of Nikki Devi so far as the allegation of rape is concerned. Smt. Samso Devi would be the last person to tear her abdomen for the sake of others. She has no axe to grind against the appellant. Even before the Panchayat impliedly the appellant had admitted his guilt by exhorting that whatever he wanted to do he had done with the prosecutrix. The testimony of the prosecutrix can be acted upon to base conviction. In the present case there is corroboration not only from the testimony of PW6 Nikki Devi, but the conduct of the prosecutrix is very relevant when she narrated the entire occurrence to her mother-in-law and this evidence is admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The testimony of the prosecutrix can be acted upon to base conviction. In the present case there is corroboration not only from the testimony of PW6 Nikki Devi, but the conduct of the prosecutrix is very relevant when she narrated the entire occurrence to her mother-in-law and this evidence is admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, the evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the medical evidence. Merely that there was no violence injury on the person of the prosecutrix is no ground to reject her testimony. 10. I have independently gone through the reasons advanced by the learned trial Court in recording the conviction of the appellant and I do not want to differ with those reasons. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is without any force and the same is hereby dismissed.