Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 898 (MP)

Rajesh Gupta v. State of M. P.

2002-09-26

AJIT SINGH

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. This judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 2733/2000 (Raju v. State of M.P.) 2. Appellants, Rajesh and Raju, the accused persons in this case, have been convicted under section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by the IV Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sagar, vide judgment dated 21.9.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 140/2000. They were also prosecuted for charges under sections 323 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and have been acquitted of the said charges. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are as under: Prosecutrix, Ku. Maya (PW 6), accused persons, Rajesh and Raju, and the material witnesses belong to Gopalganj locality within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gopalganj of Sagar town. The prosecutrix Ku. Maya (PW 6) works as maid servant in different houses of the Gopalganj locality. Her date of birth is 1.7.1985 and as such she was less than 16 years on the date of incident. On 1.3.2000 at about 6.30 p.m., while she was returning to her house after finishing her work, accused persons, Rajesh and Raju, met her on the way and told her that her parents have called her at the house of Prem Narayan Pataskar (PW 12) where they are working on some order. Thereafter, both of them made her sit in an auto rickshaw and took her to a room which was taken on rent by them from Prem Narayan Pataskar (PW 12). In the auto rickshaw, the accused persons, Rajesh and Raju, had threatened Ku. Maya (PW 6) with a knife. In the room, both the accused persons repeatedly committed rape on her one after another after bolting the door from inside. They confined the prosecutrix Ku. Maya (PW 6) in the room upto 9.30 p.m. and thereafter when she wept the accused persons beat her and caused injuries to her. After sometime, they left Ku. Maya (PW 6) in a lane a little away and ran away. She narrated the incident to her parents, Paramlal Raikwar (PW 2) and Smt. Guddi Raikwar (PW 3). Thereafter, she immediately lodged the First Information Report, Ex. P-2, at 10.30 p.m. at Police Station, Gopalganj. After sometime, they left Ku. Maya (PW 6) in a lane a little away and ran away. She narrated the incident to her parents, Paramlal Raikwar (PW 2) and Smt. Guddi Raikwar (PW 3). Thereafter, she immediately lodged the First Information Report, Ex. P-2, at 10.30 p.m. at Police Station, Gopalganj. She was sent for medical examination. Dr. Saroj Bhuria (PW 1) examined her and found her hymen torn. There was an injury around hymen and the area was inflamed. Her report is Ex. P-1 in which she confirmed that there was enough evidence of recent sexual activity with Ku. Maya (PW 6). Ku. Maya (PW 6) was also examined by Dr. R.K. Khare (PW 16). He found as many as three injuries on her person including an incised wound of 1/2 cm. x 2 mm. over base of nose caused by hard and sharp cutting edge object. After investigation the charge sheet was filed. 4. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that they have been falsely implicated. According to accused Raju, he was not present at the place of incident. 5. The trial Court has held that Ku. Maya (PW 6) was 14 years and 8 months of age on the date of incident and the accused persons had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset. 6. The conviction of the accused persons, Rajesh and Raju, have been challenged on the ground that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of Ku. Maya (PW 6) as she had an affair with the accused Raju and hence was a consenting party. It has also been asserted that the trial Court committed an illegality in holding that Ku. Maya (PW 6) was less than 16 years of age. 7. I have carefully perused the evidence of Ku. Maya (PW 6). She has deposed in her evidence that while she was returning to her house after finishing her work from the house of one Guddu Pateria, both the accused persons met her on the way and forcibly, by wielding a knife, took her in an auto rickshaw to a room which they had taken on rent from Prem Narayan Pataskar (PW 12). Her protests and requests to them went unheeded and they forcibly committed rape on her repeatedly one after another. Her protests and requests to them went unheeded and they forcibly committed rape on her repeatedly one after another. She has further deposed that when she wept, the accused persons beat her as a result of which she sustained injuries on her person. She has further deposed that she narrated the incident to her parents, Paramlal Raikwar (PW 2) and Smt. Guddi 'Raikwar' (PW 3), who have also corroborated her evidence. Ku. Maya (PW 6) has also deposed that she immediately lodged the report, Ex. P-2, about the incident at 10.30 p.m. Dr. Saroj Bhuria (PW 1) has testified that she examined Ku. Maya (PW 6) on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd March, 2000, and recorded her findings as stated above. She further deposed that there was an injury on the private part of prosecutrix Ku. Maya (PW 6) which was due to penetration and there was no uncertainty about her finding that she was subjected to recent sexual activity. The medical report is Ex. P-1. Dr. R.K. Khare (PW 16) has testified that he had examined Ku. Maya (PW 6) immediately after the incident and found injuries 1 mentioned in his report; Ex. P-5, as stated above. 8. The evidence of Ku. Maya (PW 6) is fully reliable and is substantially corroborated by the First Information Report, Ex. P-2, which she lodged soon after the incident. Assistant Sub- Inspector, P.N. Yadav (PW 14), has also deposed that he recorded the First Information Report as narrated by Ku. Maya (PW 6) and thereafter he referred her for medical examination as she had injuries on her person. The medical reports, Exs. P-1 and P-5, corroborate the testimony of Ku. Maya (PW 6). She had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons. The plea of alibi taken by accused Raju has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court in the absence of any evidence with regard to his defence of alibi. The accused persons have admitted during their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they had taken the room in question on rent from Prem Narayan Pataskar (PW 12). 9. The arguments on behalf of the accused persons that the trial Court committed an illegality in holding that the prosecutrix Ku. Maya (PW 6) was less than 16 years of age on the date of incident is fallacious on the face of it. 9. The arguments on behalf of the accused persons that the trial Court committed an illegality in holding that the prosecutrix Ku. Maya (PW 6) was less than 16 years of age on the date of incident is fallacious on the face of it. The prosecution has examined Usha David (PW 17), a Head Mistress of Primary Girls School, Gopalganj, in which Ku. Maya (PW 6) had studied upto Class V. Usha David (PW 17) has produced the admission register Ex. P-15, of the school in which the date of birth of Ku. Maya (PW 6) is recorded as 1.7.1985. Ex. P-17 is the f mark sheet issued from the said school in which also her date of birth is recorded as 1.7.1985. Not only this, even the birth register, Ex. P-16, of the Municipal Council, Sagar, also shows her date of birth as 1.7.1985. The said documents and the entries made therein regarding the date of birth of Ku. Maya (PW 6) have not been challenged by the accused persons in the cross-examination of Usha David (PW 17). Further both, Paramlal Raikwar (PW 2) and Smt. Guddi Raikwar (PW 3), have deposed that on the date of incident the age of their daughter was 15 years. Merely because in the First Information Report, Ex. P-2, the tentative age of the prosecutrix Ku. Maya (PW 6) was shown as 16 years and that she was not referred for Ossification Test in my opinion, would not mean that her date of birth is not 1.7.1985. The age mentioned in the First Information Report is only tentative. The trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the age of prosecutrix Ku. Maya (PW 6) on the date of incident was 15 years and 8 months. 10. In State v. Gurmeet Singh [ AIR 1996 SC 1393 ], it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the testimony of the victim in cases of rape is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The evidence of a victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight. The evidence of a victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. 11. As stated above, the evidence of Ku. Maya (PW 6) inspires full confidence and to a great extent finds re-assurance from the First Information Report, Ex. P-2, and the medical evidence vide Exs. P-1 and P-5. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are dismissed.