Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 446 (PNJ)

Ram Rattan v. State Of Haryana

2005-03-28

MEHTAB S.GILL, SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 23/26.2.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo imprisonment for two years. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the prosecutrix, who, in her complaint, Exhibit PG/1, addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station City Rewari, has stated that she is a resident of village Gujar Ghatal, Police Station Dharuhera. She is 23 years old. She failed in 10th class. The name of her brother and sisters are Kamlesh, aged 21 years, Dhirender, aged 19 years and Seema, aged 16 years. She was married to Ram Parshad son of Ganpat Singh, resident of Sultanpuri, Delhi on 10.5.1997. Her brother and sisters are unmarried. Her father was serving in the Navy. When she was aged about 5-6 years, her father raped her, for the first time. They were in Vashakapatnam at that time, where he was posted. Thereafter, they lived in Bombay till 1989. Her father continued raping her. She did not tell this to her mother to anyone else. In 1989, her father started living in Kachi Kothi, Model Town, Rewari in a rented house. Her father raped her in this house also. They lived in this house ofr about one year. Thereafter, they changed the house and rented the house of one Ram Parshad Jatia. They lived in this house for about one year. Thereafter, their family shifted to Khadda Basti, Rewari, where they lived in the house of Shanti Jatia for about 8-9 months. Her father did not commit rape on her in this house. Thereafter, they shifted to village Gujar Ghatal, district Rewari in April, 1993. Her father did not rape her there. She got married on 10.5.1997. Her father used to give her telephonic calls that she should come to her parents house. When she used to come to her parents house, her father used to tell her that there was some important work and asked her to come outside. All these things came to the notice of her husband and father-in-law. They then turned her out of her matrimonial home. 3. When she used to come to her parents house, her father used to tell her that there was some important work and asked her to come outside. All these things came to the notice of her husband and father-in-law. They then turned her out of her matrimonial home. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, brought into the witness box Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Man (PW-1), Constable Naresh Kumar (PW-2), Constable Dharam Pal (PW-3), Prosecutrix (PW-4), Dr. Chander Sheikhar (PW-5), Suraj Bhan, Sub- Inspector (PW-6) and Sunil Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-7). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that this is a case, where demand of dowry has led to the false implication of the father of the prosecutrix by putting the prosecutrix under duress and threat of turning her out of the matrimonial house, unless she gave a false statement to the police against her father. As per statement of the prosecutrix made before Sunil Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-7), the Investigating Officer, she stated her age was 5-6 years, when she was first raped and thereafter she was raped a number of times. Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Mann (PW-1) has stated in her testimony that she did not find any external mark of injury on the person of prosecutrix. There was no injury old or new in the vagina. Learned counsel has argued that it is not believable that the prosecutrix, a child of a tender age of 5-6 years on being raped, did not suffer any injury. In such like cases, bleeding takes place and the injury caused to the vagina, has to be attended to by a Medical Practitioner. It is strange that the prosecutrix did not disclose this fact to her mother or to her sisters regarding she being raped by her father. Prosecutrix, in her testimony before the Court, she has stated that she got pregnant in Bombay, when she was 12 years of age. Her father arranged for an abortion. This also she did not disclose. Abortion done on a child of 12 years is a major operation. It is not believable that the mother of the prosecutrix was not informed. Further, in her testimony, she has stated that all the members of the family lived together. The other persons of the family did not know about the rape. Her testimony in this regard is untruthful. 5. It is not believable that the mother of the prosecutrix was not informed. Further, in her testimony, she has stated that all the members of the family lived together. The other persons of the family did not know about the rape. Her testimony in this regard is untruthful. 5. Letters, Exhibits DA and DB, clearly prove that the prosecutrix was being beaten and harassed by her in-laws and a demand of scooter, 10 tolas gold, a colour T.V. and a washing machine, was made. 6. In his statement before the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has stated that the FIR registered against him is false. It is a concocted story to extort money from the appellant by the in- laws of his daughter. The FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix on the instigation of her in-laws. Appellant had never resided in Rewari. Document Mark A and Exhibits PF/1 to PF-4/4 were procured by force. 7. Smt. Sumitra, the mother of the prosecutrix has come into the witness box as DW-6. She has stated that the Superintendent of Police, Rewari, enquired into the matter and found the appellant innocent. The in-laws of the prosecutrix obgained her thumb impressions on some documents. She did not know, as to what were those documents, on which she put her thumb impressions. Her thumb impressions were taken in the house of the in-laws of her daughter. She was called to the house of the in-laws of her daughter on she receiving a message that her son-in-law and daughter-in-law had committed suicide. The in-laws of her daughter had demanded dowry. She has further stated that her husband did not have any illicit relation with the prosecutrix. Appellant had not confessed his guilt of having illicit relations. Similarly, Kamlesh, daughter of the appellant, who appeared as DW-7, has supported the case of the appellant stating that there was a demand of dowry and a false FIR had been registered against the appellant, so that he succumbs to the pressure to give dowry to the in-laws of the prosecutrix. 8. Similarly, Kamlesh, daughter of the appellant, who appeared as DW-7, has supported the case of the appellant stating that there was a demand of dowry and a false FIR had been registered against the appellant, so that he succumbs to the pressure to give dowry to the in-laws of the prosecutrix. 8. Document, Mark-A, the alleged confession made by the appellant, is a fabricated document, though it cannot be read in evidence, but for the sake of arguments, even if we scrutinize this document, it clearly comes out that the prosecutrix along with the appellant, the mother and sister signed on a blank piece of paper. Smt. Sumitra the mother of the prosecutrix and Kamlesh, the sister, have come into the witness box as DW-6 and DW-7 and stated that they were forced to sign on a piece of paper, the contents of which, they did not know. They have further stated that the appellant was also forced to sign on a blank piece of paper, after he was physically assaulted. Document, Mark-A is dated 29.7.1997. Marriage of the prosecutrix had taken place on 10.5.1997. Within a period of two months, the in-laws of the prosecutrix got signatures of the appellant, his wife and daughter affixed on a blank piece of paper. The alleged confession made by the appellant, above the signatures, was written later on. The relationship of the prosecutrix and her in-laws at that point of time were in a very delicate stage and to keep the marriage of their daughter from not breaking, they signed on the blank piece of paper. 9. Learned counsel for the State has stated that documents, Exhibits DA and DB, cannot be believed. These letters had not been sent by post. It is a mystery, as to how these letters came into the possession of the appellant. Marriage had taken place on 10.5.1997. Letter, Exhibit DA is dated 12.10.1997. He has further stated that the prosecutrix is telling the truth. No girl would come forward to accuse her own father of committing rape on her. Her testimony is truthful. She has stood by her statement on oath in the Court. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the record with their assistance. 11. This is a case of its own peculiar nature. Her testimony is truthful. She has stood by her statement on oath in the Court. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the record with their assistance. 11. This is a case of its own peculiar nature. It has been alleged by the prosecutrix that she was raped by her own father. After hearing the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses carefully and minutely, especially the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1), appellants wife Smt. Sumitra (DW-6) and appellants daughter Kamlesh (DW-7) and appellant himself, we have come to the conclusion that demand of dowry by the in-laws of the prosecutrix was the sole reason for lodging a false FIR against the appellant by his own daughter on the instigation of her in-laws. FIR was lodged to black-mail the appellant, so that the demand of dowry be acceded. 12. Prosecutrix was married to Ram Parshad Lohiya on 10.5.1997. She was born on 20.12.1975. In her testimony before the Court, she has stated that she has three sisters and one brother. She resided at Vishakapatnam with her parents. When she was 5-6 years old, her father used to sleep with her and raped her. He kept raping her on different occasions till she was 17 years of age. She was raped in the day time and also in the night. In 1989 after retiring from the Nevy, her father stated living in Krishna Nagar, Rewari. As per the prosecutrix, appellant had started raping her in the year 1980-81, when she was just 5-6 years old. In 1989, her father along with her family shifted to Rewari. From 1981 till 1989, she was raped several times. This was the period when her family lived together. 13. Testimony of the prosecutrix before the Court is not convincing. It does not appeal to our mind that for nine years when the prosecutrix was a little child of 5-6 years and as alleged, she was raped by her father, she did not disclose this to her mother or to her sisters or brother. The prosecutrix at that time was of a tender and innocent age. She could not have kept the incidence of she being raped by her father a closely guarded secret. The prosecutrix at that time was of a tender and innocent age. She could not have kept the incidence of she being raped by her father a closely guarded secret. The mother of the prosecutrix would have come to know about the alleged rape, as there would have been physical injury on the person of the prosecutrix. It has come in the testimony of the prosecutrix that the family lived together. Question No. 5, which was put to her, in her testimony before the Court is as under :- "Q : 5 Whether at that time, your mother, father, sister and brother were living together ? A : Yes." Prosecutrixs father retired from the Nevy in the year 1990. Prosecutrix has answered Question No. 6, as under :- "Q : 6 I put to you that your family shifted to village straight after retirement of your father. What have you to say ? A : It is incorrect." As alleged by the prosecution for about 09 years, prosecutrix was being raped, but it is strange that no one from the family knew about it. From the answer given in question No. 6, it is clear that till 1990, appellant had not shifted to Rewari. 14 To question No. 8, she has admitted that the letters, Exhibits DA and DB, were written by her, though she has stated that they were taken by her father forcibly. She has admitted in the letter, Exhibit DA, that a Panchayat was convened by Ram Parshad, Sarpanch. This Panchayat was convened regarding her relationship with her husband. Letter, Exhibit DA, was written by the prosecutrix on 12.10.1997, after about five months of her marriage, wherein she has stated that she was being beaten by her in-laws for the reason that they were demanding a scooter, 10 tolas of gold, a colour T.V. and a washing machine. Her in-laws were threatening to throw her out of their house. She was threatened that she would be made naked in the verandah of the house, if their views were not accepted. Kerosene oil would be poured on her and she would be burnt with a biri. Her father-in-law Ganpat, her mother-in-law Parmali and her husband Ram Parshad are pressurising her and are making preparations to sell her. This was being done to pressurise her to make false allegations against her father. Kerosene oil would be poured on her and she would be burnt with a biri. Her father-in-law Ganpat, her mother-in-law Parmali and her husband Ram Parshad are pressurising her and are making preparations to sell her. This was being done to pressurise her to make false allegations against her father. She has further stated in her letter that on 29.7.1997, her father was called by her in-laws and he was insulted in front of all the family members. Dowry demand was being made, otherwise she would be turned out of the house. In letter, Exhibit DB, prosecutrix has stated that she was married to Ram Parshad son of Ganpat, resident of Sultanpur Post Office Mehroli. After her marriage, her in-laws started torturing, taunting and insulting her without any reason. She complained to her mother-in-law Parmali Devi. Her mother-in-law retorted "we were not given any dowry in the marriage." On 12.5.1997 her father-in-law Ganpat, brother of her husband Yashpal, younger brother of her husband Vicky, Robi and Naresh had discussed the dowry in the evening at the time of dinner. All of them, insulted the prosecutrixs family. On 14/15th May, prosecutrixs husband, Ram Parshad, Parmali Devi and Ganpat poured kerosene oil on the prosecutrix. She was given 10 to 12 tablets. She became unconscious. Prior to this, she had been beaten up. After she became conscious, she pleaded that she be left to go to her fathers house. Her husband Ram Parshad mal-treated her and accused her that she had illicit relations with her brother and father. They demand 10 tolas of gold, a scooter, a colour T.V., a Godrej Almirah and a washing machine. They stated that she cannot live in this house unless all these articles are brought. Her husband, thereafter, beat her. She pleaded that she be sent to her parents house. They refused to do so and taunted her that her father is a drunkard and a man of bad character. She rebutted this and asked them as to from where they have heard all this. She was beaten very badly. Her husband started saying things about her father and brother. She pleaded that these are all lies. She further pleaded that if this is going to be her plight in the house, then she be killed. Her husband then stated that he is ready to kill her. 15. She was beaten very badly. Her husband started saying things about her father and brother. She pleaded that these are all lies. She further pleaded that if this is going to be her plight in the house, then she be killed. Her husband then stated that he is ready to kill her. 15. From these letters, Exhibits DA and DB, it is clear that the prosecutrix was being tortured and had become a victim of coercion and threats. Such was the intimidation that she succumbed to the dictates of her husband and his family. As per letter, Exhibit DB, demand of dowry had started taking place on 12.5.1997, i.e., two days after the marriage which has taken place on 10.5.1997. The wordings and sentences of these letters though are not very systematic, but one can gauge her feelings and the stress, she was going through. She was ready to go to any extreme to see that her marriage did not break apart. 16. Appellant Ram Rattan, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has denied the accusation hurled upon him. Smt. Sumitra, wife of the appellant, has appeared as DW-6. In her testimony before the Court, she has defended her husband. She has stated that the in-laws of the prosecutrix had brought some persons after about six months of the marriage and protested to her that the agreed dowry was not given. A Panchayat was called. What happened in the panchayat, she did not know. Her husband retired from the Nevy and thereafter, started living in village Gujar Ghatal. Similarly, Kamlesh, the daughter of the appellant, who came into the witness box as DW-7, has supported the case of the appellant. She has stated that the prosecutrix is her elder sister. She along with her sister and brother were studying in Central School, Rewari. They used to go daily to Rewari from the village to study in the school. Her family was not having good relations with the in-laws of her sister. They never lived at Rewari. To a question put to her, whether the prosecutrix had informed her about the alleged illicit relations of her father Ram Rattan with her, she has stated `No. To another question that whether her sister had written any letter to her father about the mal-treatment by her in-laws, she replied in the affirmative. They never lived at Rewari. To a question put to her, whether the prosecutrix had informed her about the alleged illicit relations of her father Ram Rattan with her, she has stated `No. To another question that whether her sister had written any letter to her father about the mal-treatment by her in-laws, she replied in the affirmative. She has stated that there was a grievance of non-payment of dowry and the in-laws of her sister were saying that the agreed dowry has not been paid. 17. From the testimony of both these witnesses, i.e. Smt. Sumitra and Kamlesh, it comes out, that right from the time when the prosecutrix was just 5 to 6 years, she never at any stage of her life disclosed it to her mother, sisters or brother that she was being raped. They were living in one house. Her brother and sisters were going to and coming from the school together. By not disclosing that rape was being committed on her, it shows that the prosecutrix is not telling the truth, but, in fact, she was suppressing this fact that the appellant had not committed rape on her. 18. Ram Chander Jowel, Superintendent of Police, Rewari, who appeared as DW-1, found the appellant to be innocent. He has stated in his testimony before the Court that the wife of Ram Rattan appellant, Ram Rattan himself and his two daughters, aged 19 to 20 approached him with the request that injustice was being done in this case. Ram Chander Jowel (DW-8) first discussed the case with DSP and the SHO, as the case was of a very serious nature. It was relating to the pious relationship of a father and his daughter. He called the village panchayat and enquired from them individually as well as collectively. He also enquired about the character of appellant Ram Rattan. From members of the Panchayat, it came out that Ram Rattan appellant was being harassed for demand of dowry. The Superintendent of Police then summoned the prosecutrix and her husband to his office in the course of the enquiry. Prosecutrix along with her father-in-law and mother-in-law appeared before him in his office, but her husband did not do so. He talked to them individually and collectively. The Superintendent of Police then summoned the prosecutrix and her husband to his office in the course of the enquiry. Prosecutrix along with her father-in-law and mother-in-law appeared before him in his office, but her husband did not do so. He talked to them individually and collectively. Prosecutrix maintained that she was raped by her father Ram Rattan from the age of 5 years till the age of 12 years at Vishakapatnam and Bombay. She further stated that she was raped at Rewari also. When asked as to whether she had disclosed this to her mother or sisters or anybody else, she replied in the negative. She even denied that this information was disclosed by her to anyone at Bombay. She could not give any satisfactory explanation for this conduct. He further enquired from her, as to why she had disclosed this crime about her father, to her husband, which normally, no wife would like to disclose to her husband. Her answer was that her father had not given her share of the money, which he had got as retiral benefits. It was after verifying from both the parties and the General Public that the Superintendent of Police, Rewari concluded that a false case had been registered against the appellant. Testimony on oath of such a senior officer cannot be taken lightly, especially when it is weighed against the statements of the Investigating Officers Sub-Inspector Suraj Bhan and Assistant Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW-6 and PW-7 respectively). 19. Sunil Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-7) has stated in his testimony before the Court that he had made only general enquiries. He has not stated whether he had made enquiries from the locality where appellant Ram Rattan was living or whether he had specifically made enquiries from the mother, sisters and brother of the prosecutrix. In fact, one can safely conclude that the mother, sisters and brother of the prosecutrix were not interrogated. 20. Suraj Bhan, Sub-Inspector (PW-6) is only a formal witness. 21. The Investigating Officer has acted in a mechanical manner. Inspite of having an enquiry report conducted by the Superintendent of Police Mr. Ram Chander Jowel, before him, which had exonerated the appellant, still he did not reopen the investigation to verify the truthfulness of the allegations. He did not investigate the case properly. 22. 21. The Investigating Officer has acted in a mechanical manner. Inspite of having an enquiry report conducted by the Superintendent of Police Mr. Ram Chander Jowel, before him, which had exonerated the appellant, still he did not reopen the investigation to verify the truthfulness of the allegations. He did not investigate the case properly. 22. We are distressed by this fact that a religiously sacrosanct and pure relationship of father and daughter has been maligned and tarnished in this case. Faulty investigation done by the Investigating Officer has dishonoured the appellant. The Investigating Officer did not have the courage to look into the facts and circumstances of the case in a dispassionate manner. A false case has been foisted upon the appellant. The appellant was an officer, who had served the Indian Navy. Nothing has come from the prosecution evidence that he did not carry a good reputation in the Navy. We are not ready to believe that such like actions would have gone unnoticed by the Naval authorities in such a disciplined force. Families in the armed forces are closely knit. The alleged rape started at the age of 5 to 6 years. It would have come to the knowledge of the mother and other children. This could not have been kept a secret. Defence version appears to be more plausible than the prosecution story. Prosecution has failed to prove the charge against appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 23. For the reasons recorded above, appeal of the appellant is accepted. Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him honourably. If in custody, he be released forthwith.