Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1251 (PNJ)

Chet Ram v. State of Haryana

2003-09-05

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2003
JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - The prosecution story in brief is that complainant Som Wati along with her husband left her house at 8 a.m. Her elder daughter Babli aged 10 years was in the house. 2. At about 2 p.m., her Devar Jai Pal who is also aged 10 years, came to Som Wati and told her that accused Chet Ram had committed rape on Babli. 3. Complainant Som Wati (PW-5) along with her husband Sukh Ram (PW-8) reached their house, they saw Babli weeping. Babli told them that she along with Jai Pal (PW-7) were playing. Chet Ram accused came there. He told Jai Pal to bring water from the tap and took Babli inside the Jhuggi. He gave her 75 paise, gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth and after untying the string of her salwar, committed rape on her. In the meantime, Jai Pal came there and saw the accused committing rape on Babli. Seeing this, Jai Pal ran away. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr. Savita Ranjan (PW-1), Dr. A.K. Saena (Saxena ?) (PW-2), a formal witness namely Inspector Narender Singh (PW-3), Sohan Lal Draftsman (PW-4), complainant-Som Wati (PW-5), Babli, the prosecutrix herself (PW-6), Jai Pal, the eye-witness (PW-7) and Sukh Ram, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-8). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and perused the record with their assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the statement of PW-1 Dr. Savita Ranjan. He has stated that intercourse was not committed on the person of the prosecutrix. He referred to the statement of the doctor wherein the doctor has opined that if the act of sexual intercourse was committed by the accused, there is a possibility of male organ receiving injury. Insertion into the vagina of a virgin girl, like the prosecutrix could have been very well done with fingers. The type of injuries found in the vagina of the prosectrix could be also by violating the prosecutrix by fingers only. He has further stated that smegma was not found to have been rubbed of, from the male organ of the accused. The type of injuries found in the vagina of the prosectrix could be also by violating the prosecutrix by fingers only. He has further stated that smegma was not found to have been rubbed of, from the male organ of the accused. He has further stated that there are a lot of contradictions between the statements of PW-6 Babli and PW-7 Jai Pal, especially statement given under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and then on oath before the Court. Both these witnesses have been confronted with their statements. He has further stated that there has been a lot of improvement in the statements of both these witnesses. 7. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the testimony of PW-6 Babli and PW-7 Jai Pal who are minors, though have to be read with care and caution, but the statement of PW-6 Babli, the prosecutrix, is enough to convict the accused. He has further stated that the statement of the prosecutrix gets corroboration from the statement of PW-7 Jai Pal, who is also a minor child and from the statement of Dr. Savita Ranjan (PW-1) who has stated that in her opinion, the possibility that sexual intercourse has been performed, cannot be ruled out. 8. The age of the prosecutrix Babli (PW-6) at the time of the occurrence was about 9 years. The Court put her questions to see whether she could answer correctly and also to test her intelligence. The trial Court was satisfied with the answers given by the prosecutrix. 9. In her statement, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the accused on the pretext of measuring her clothes, took her to his house. He sent Jai Pal (PW-7) to fetch water and then put her on a cot. She was further stated that the accused gave her 75 paise and removed her clothes. She has clearly stated in her examination-in-chief that after applying oil to his penis, the accused inserted the same and committed rape on her. The accused had a knife with him and threatened the prosecutrix that if she made any noise, he would kill her. Jai Pal came back in the meantime and saw the occurrence, but being a child, he ran away. Further, in her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that she felt pain and started bleeding from her private parts. She tried to raise an alarm, but she was threatened. Jai Pal came back in the meantime and saw the occurrence, but being a child, he ran away. Further, in her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that she felt pain and started bleeding from her private parts. She tried to raise an alarm, but she was threatened. She is categoric in her assertion in the cross-examination and has stated that the accused committed rape on her. 10. PW-7 Jai Pal whose age at the time of giving statement in the Court was about 10 years, was also put questions to test his intelligence. The learned trial Court was satisfied that the witness was a competent witness and fit to give answers to questions. 11. Jai Pal (PW-7) has stated that the accused committed "Bura Kaam" on the prosecutrix. By "Bura Kaam", he meant sexual intercourse. He has further stated that Babli was bleeding and she had become unconscious. There was a bed-sheet on the cot. The cot had blood stains. 12. PW-5 Som Wati, the complainant, and her husband Sukh Ram (PW-8) have corroborated the version put forward by prosecutrix Babli. PW-7 Jai Pal was corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. 13. The occurrence in this case took place on 6.4.1987 and 2.30 p.m. The F.I.R. (Ex. PF) was lodged on 6.4.1987 at 5.45 p.m. Special Report reached the Duty Magistrate on 7.4.1987 at 7 p.m. The endorsement made by the Duty Magistrate on the F.I.R. (Ex. PF) is, "stated to have been dropped at my residence at 8 a.m. on 7.4.1987 and received by me at 7 p.m. today, i.e. 7.4.1987". 14. Recording of the FIR is prompt. The Special Report reached the Duty Magistrate on 7.4.1987 at 8 a.m. as probably he was not at his house at 8 a.m. when it was dropped there. 15. Learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Nikka Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 130 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that the occurrence which was witnessed by the son of the deceased aged 11 to 12 years and the trial court found him to be intelligent and capable of giving evidence and even after cross-examination, his testimony could not be shaken, the conviction was rightly based on his evidence. 16. 16. In the present case also, the testimony of two child witnesses namely PW-6 Babli and PW-7 Jai Pal could not be shaken even in the cross-examination. 17. Learned counsel for the State has further drawn my attention to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mangoo and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995(2) RCR 481, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that when the occurrence has been witnessed by a minor child, the discrepancies in the statement regarding number of blows inflicted and which side of the weapon was used in first instance, are not material. No evidence that child was tutored - Conviction was upheld. 18. In the present case also, it does not come out that the child witnesses were tutored. The child witnesses gave statement before the Court after understanding the sanctity of oath. 19. Learned counsel for the State has further drawn my attention to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996(1) RCR 533 to show that minor discrepancies or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix are fatal to the prosecution case - Courts not to be swayed away by these discrepancies. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration on material particulars. It was further held by the Honble Supreme Court that rape is not merely a physical assault - It is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim - A murderer destroys the physical body of the victim - A rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female - Courts must deal with these cases with utmost sensitivity. It has been further held that just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, evidence of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight also. 20. Learned counsel for the State has further drawn my attention to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sudhanshu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2003(1) RCR 447, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case is to be given due weight. 20. Learned counsel for the State has further drawn my attention to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sudhanshu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2003(1) RCR 447, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case is to be given due weight. Conviction can be solely based on the evidence of the victim, provided such evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. It is also reasonable to assume that no woman would falsely implicate a person in sexual offences as the honour and prestige of that woman also would be at stake." 21. The evidence of prosecutrix in this case inspires confidence. Her statement is corroborated by PW-5 Som Wati, PW-7 Jai Pal and PW-8 Sukh Ram. 22. In such like heinous offences where rape has been committed on a minor, the Court cannot show any mercy to the accused. 23. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.1.1988, convicted the accused under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.