Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1629 (HP)

Ravinder alias Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-11-04

P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT P.S.Rana, J. 1. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2012 titled State of H.P. vs. Ravinder @ Raju decided on 25.7.2013. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on 1.7.2012 late in the evening there was ceremony in the house or Jaram Singh in village Ghangar which continued till next morning. It is alleged by prosecution that accused attended the ceremony in the house of Jaram Singh in village Ghangar and prosecutrix was also present there along with her cousins. It is alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix also attended the ceremony till midnight and thereafter returned back to her home with her cousins namely Manish PW9, Rakesh Kumar PW10 and Trilok PW2. It is alleged by prosecution that accused asked Manish PW9, Rakesh PW10 and Trilok PW2 to go back to the house of Jaram Singh with direction to bring Sunil. It is alleged by prosecution that accused asked the prosecutrix to wait till their arrival. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused took the prosecutrix towards forest area and also gagged the mouth of prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix without her consent. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused threatened the prosecutrix that in case she would disclose the incident to anyone then she would be killed. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter prosecutrix was took by her father to the residence of Smt. Geeta Devi PW4 Pardhan of Gram Panchayat and incident was reported to Pardhan Gram Panchayat. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter prosecutrix along with her father Rangeel Singh PW12 visited Tehsil office Chowari and filed complaint Ext.PW11/A before SDM Chowari who advised the prosecutrix and her father to report the matter in police station. It is alleged by prosecution that on the basis of complaint Ext.PW11/A FIR Ext.PW17/A was registered at P.S. Chowari and thereafter medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted at Civil Hospital Nurpur vide MLC Ext.PW1/B. It is alleged by prosecution that as per MLC sexual intercourse upon prosecutrix was committed and prosecutrix also sustained simple injuries. It is alleged by prosecution that on the basis of complaint Ext.PW11/A FIR Ext.PW17/A was registered at P.S. Chowari and thereafter medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted at Civil Hospital Nurpur vide MLC Ext.PW1/B. It is alleged by prosecution that as per MLC sexual intercourse upon prosecutrix was committed and prosecutrix also sustained simple injuries. It is alleged by prosecution that during medical examination of prosecutrix her vaginal swab, vaginal slides and pubic hairs were preserved and were sealed in a parcel and sent for forensic examination. It is alleged by prosecution that as per chemical examination report semen was detected on vaginal swab of prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that place where offence of sexual assault was committed was shown by prosecutrix to investigating agency and site plan Ext.PW17/F was prepared and photographs Ext.PW17/F-1 to Ext.PW17/F-4 also obtained from official camera. It is alleged by prosecution that salwar Ext.P2, underwear Ext.P3 and blood stained towel Ext.P4 were took into possession and sealed in cloth parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. It is alleged by prosecution that two CDs also prepared and on 13.7.2012 five sealed parcels containing clothes, pubic hair and vaginal swab of prosecutrix were handed over to MHC Rajpal vide RC No. 46 of 2012 with direction to deposit in the office of RFSL Dharamshala for forensic examination. It is alleged by prosecution that forensic report Ext.PW17/A was received. 3. Charge was framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Chamba (H.P.) against appellant Ravinder Kumar under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined seventeen oral witnesses in support of its case and also tendered documentary evidence. 5. Learned trial Court convicted appellant under Sections 376(1) and 506 IPC on 25.7.2013 and learned trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also imposed fine to the tune of `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine appellant shall further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Learned trial Court further sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 506 IPC and also sentenced the appellant to pay fine to the tune of ` 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine appellant shall further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Learned trial Court further sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 506 IPC and also sentenced the appellant to pay fine to the tune of ` 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned trial Court further directed that period of detention undergone by appellant w.e.f. 04.07.2012 onwards shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Leanred trial Court further directed that `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) of fine will be spent in defraying the expenses incurred in prosecution of this case and rest of fine i.e. ` 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) will be paid to prosecutrix as compensation. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court appellant filed present appeal. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination in the present appeal:- Point No. 1 Whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? Point No. 2 Final Order . 9. Reasons for findings on point No.1: 9.1. PW1 Dr. Mini Sharma has stated that she was posted as medical officer in the year 2012 in Civil Hospital Nurpur and she received application Ext.PW1/A from police for medical examination of prosecutrix. She has stated that prosecutrix was identified by her father Rangeel Singh. She has stated that prosecutrix was calm, conscious and well oriented to time place and person. She has stated that there was abrasion of 0.5 cm in size on left scapula reddish in colour. She has stated that there was joint abrasion on right scapula reddish in colour. All injuries were of same duration. She has stated that there was abrasion upon inner surface of labia minora reddish in colour and hymen was torn. She has stated that pubic hair preserved and all packed samples sent for forensic examination. She has stated that there was joint abrasion on right scapula reddish in colour. All injuries were of same duration. She has stated that there was abrasion upon inner surface of labia minora reddish in colour and hymen was torn. She has stated that pubic hair preserved and all packed samples sent for forensic examination. She has stated that prosecutrix was advised X-ray for age determination and was also advised urine test for pregnancy test. She has stated that sexual intercourse of recent duration less than 72 hours could not be ruled out. She has stated that three injuries were present. He has stated that as per FSL report human semen was detected on vaginal slides of prosecutrix and further stated that she issued MLC Ext.PW1/B which bears her signatures. She has denied suggestion that possibility of rape could be ruled out on the ground that no injuries were observed on cheeks, breast of prosecutrix. 9.2 PW2 Trilok Singh has stated that he is student of 9th class. He has stated that on 1.7.2012 he along with Rakesh and Manish had gone to house of Jaram Singh. He has stated that he returned back on 2.7.2012 in the morning at 7.30 AM. He has stated that none accompanied him when he came back from the function. The witness was declared hostile. 9.3 PW3 Arjun Singh has stated that he is agriculturist by profession. He has stated that he was associated by police during investigation. He has stated that accused is also known to him. He has stated that on 5.7.2012 when he was associated by police accused was not present. He has stated that police came to his reisdence to obtain his signatures. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. 9.4 PW4 Geeta Devi has stated she is President of G.P. Chowari. She has stated that on 3.7.2012 prosecutrix along with her father came to her residence in the morning and disclosed that on 1.7.2012 prosecutrix had gone to attend some function and while returning back in night on way accused met her and picked up and quarrelled with her and torn her clothes. She has stated that prosecutrix also disclosed that accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has denied suggestion that prosecutrix along with her father did not visit her. She has denied suggestion that prosecutrix did not disclose to her that accused had torn her clothes. She has stated that prosecutrix also disclosed that accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has denied suggestion that prosecutrix along with her father did not visit her. She has denied suggestion that prosecutrix did not disclose to her that accused had torn her clothes. 9.5 PW5 Ramesh Kumar has stated that he is Secretary of G.P. Kathed. He has stated that application was filed by investigating officer for supply of family register of Rangeel Singh Ext.PW5/A. He has stated that he issued copy of family register Ext.PW5/B and also issued birth certificate of prosecutrix Ext.PW5/C which is written and signed by him. He has brought original record in Court. 9.6 PW6 Rakesh Kumar has stated that on 4.7.2012 he was associated in investigation by police. He has stated that in his presence prosecutrix handed over her torn salwar, underwear and blood stained towel which she kept in forest where prosecutrix was raped by accused present in Court. He has stated that prosecutrix located the place of incident in his presence. He has stated that prosecutrix had told the investigating agency that accused had torn her salwar while committing rape. He has stated that seizure memo Ext.PW6/A was prepared in his presence which bears his signatures. He has stated that salwar Ext.P2, underwear Ext.P3 and blood stained towel Ext.P4 are same. He has denied suggestion that prosecutrix did not produce the clothes in his presence. He has denied suggestion that prosecutrix did not disclose the place of incident in his presence relating to commission of rape. He has denied suggestion that no blood stained towel produced by prosecutrix in his presence. 9.7 PW7 C.Sushil Kumar has stated that on 5.7.2012 accused had given disclosure statement Ext.PW7/A in custody of police officials. He has stated that accused had shown the place of incident where he committed the rape with prosecutrix and further stated that prosecutrix has also identified the place of incident in his presence. He has stated that memo Ext.PW7/B was prepared. He has stated that accused had also handed over his lower and underwear to police officials which he was wearing at the time of commission of rape with prosecutrix. He has stated that lower of accused is Ext.P6 and underwear of accused is Ext.P7. He has stated that I.O. had also sealed CDs in the parcel in his presence and also took photographs Ext.PW7/F-1 to Ext.PW7/F-4. He has stated that lower of accused is Ext.P6 and underwear of accused is Ext.P7. He has stated that I.O. had also sealed CDs in the parcel in his presence and also took photographs Ext.PW7/F-1 to Ext.PW7/F-4. He has denied suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement and also denied suggestion that accused did not deliver his clothes in his presence. He has denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot. He has denied suggestion that all memos were prepared in police station. 9.8 PW8 C.Sudarshan has stated that he is posted as Constable at P.S. Chowari. He has stated that on 13.7.2012 MHC Rajpal P.S. Chowari handed over to him two sealed parcels duly sealed with five seal impressions of CH Nurpur and one enveope addressed to RFSL Dharamshala and one container sealed with seal impression FRU Chowari and also handed over one envelope addressed to RFSL Dharamshala vide RC No. 46 of 2012. He has stated that another two sealed parcels having impressions ‘T’ and ‘H’ were also handed over to him and he deposited the case property at RFSL Dharamshala on 13.7.2012. He has stated that property remained safe in his possession. He has denied suggestion that no case property was handed over to him. He has stated that he did not deliver the case property in office of RFSL Dharamshala. 9.9 PW9 Manish Kumar has stated that he is student of 10th standard in Government Senior Secondary School Sahla Tehsil Bhattiyat and on 1.7.2012 he had gone to house of Jaram Singh in village Ghanghar to join religious function. He has stated that Trilok and Rakesh were also with him. He has stated that he had gone to attend the function in the evening at 7 PM and remained there till morning. He has stated that during night they did not go anywhere and on the next morning he returned along with Rakesh and Trilok. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that on 1.7.2012 in the midnight he along with Trilok, Rakesh and prosecutrix left the ceremony. He has denied suggestion that while returning back accused Ravinder met them in Ghugar forest and questioned about Sunil. He has denied suggestion that accused Ravinder sent him back along with Trilok and Rakesh to bring Sunil and also denied suggestion that prosecutrix remained with accused in Ghugar forest. He has denied suggestion that while returning back accused Ravinder met them in Ghugar forest and questioned about Sunil. He has denied suggestion that accused Ravinder sent him back along with Trilok and Rakesh to bring Sunil and also denied suggestion that prosecutrix remained with accused in Ghugar forest. He has denied suggestion that when he came back with Sunil then accused and prosecutrix were not present. He has denied suggestion that on 3.7.2012 prosecutrix disclosed to her father in his presence and in presence of Trilok and Rakesh that on previous night accused took prosecutrix to secluded place at Ghugar forest and committed sexual intercourse upon her without her consent. 9.10 PW10 Rakesh Kumar has stated that he is student of 9th class in GSSS Sahla, Tehsil Bhattiyat and on 1.7.2012 he had gone to house of Jaram Singh to attend the religious function. He has stated that Trilok and Manish also accompanied him. He has stated that he had gone to see religious ceremony at 7 PM in the evening and remained in function till morning. He has stated that during night they did not go anywhere. He has stated that in the morning he returned back along with Manish and Trilok. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that on 1.7.2012 in midnight he along with Trilok, Manish and prosecutrix left the religious function in midnight. He has denied suggestion that when they were returning back accused Ravinder met them at Gughar forest and questioned about Sunil. He has stated that accused Ravinder did not meet him in Ghugar forest. He has denied suggestion that accused Ravinder Singh sent him back along with Trilok and Manish to bring Sunil. He has denied suggestion that prosecutrix stayed with accused in Ghugar forest. He has denied suggestion that when they returned back with Sunil then accused and prosecutrix were not present. He has denied suggestion that on 3.7.2012 prosecutrix disclosed to her father in his presence and in presence of Trilok and Manish that on previous night accused at secluded place had committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix without her consent. He has denied suggestion that he has resiled from his statement in order to save accused because accused is his uncle. 9.11 PW11 prosecutrix has stated that she is housewife and presently residing at Amritsar with her husband. He has denied suggestion that he has resiled from his statement in order to save accused because accused is his uncle. 9.11 PW11 prosecutrix has stated that she is housewife and presently residing at Amritsar with her husband. She has stated that her husband is goldsmith and deals in gold. She has stated that on 1.7.2012 in evening at 7.15 PM she alongwith her aunt Kanta Devi had gone to attend ceremony in house of Jaram Singh at village Ghangar. She has stated that till 12.45 AM she witnessed the ceremony and after having feast she returned back to her house with her cousins Manish Rakesh and Trilok. She has stated that her aunt Kanta opted to stay back to witness religious ceremony till next morning. She has stated that she along with Manish, Rakesh and Trilok walked for about half K.m. and in the meanwhile accused Ravinder @ Raju present in Court called them to stop. She has stated that accused inquired about Sunil. She has further stated that accused also asked her cousins namely Manish, Rakesh and Trilok to go back to the house of Jaram Singh and bring Sunil. She has stated that accused asked her to wait till Manish, Rakesh and Trilok did not come back along with Sunil. She has stated that thereafter accused forcibly took her towards forest area and further stated that accused gagged her mouth and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She has stated that accused put off her clothes forcibly and gagged her mouth. She has stated that after committing sexual intercouse she told accused that she would disclose the incident to her father and his family members. She has stated that thereafter accused threatened her that in case she would disclose this incident to anyone she would be killed. She has stated that she reached her house in wee hours on 2.7.2012 at 3 AM. She has stated that she was nervous and did not disclose the incident to any family member because accused had threatened her to kill her. She has stated that on 3.7.2012 she disclosed the incident to her father when she was questioned by her father. She has stated that she was nervous and did not disclose the incident to any family member because accused had threatened her to kill her. She has stated that on 3.7.2012 she disclosed the incident to her father when she was questioned by her father. She has stated that thereafter her father took her to residence of Geeta Devi Pardhan of local Gram Panchayat and she disclosed the entire incident to Geeta Devi Pardhan of Gram Panchayat upon which she advised to go to Tehsil office and prepared criminal complaint and thereafter filed the same in police station. She has stated that thereafter she along with her father visited Tehsil office and got drafted criminal complaint Ext.PW11/A which bears her signatures in red encircle at point A. She has stated that she dictated application Ext.PW11/A and thereafter presented the same before SDM Chowari. She has stated that thereafter SDM Chowari advised her and her father to report the matter in police station Chowari and thereafter matter was reported to police station Chowari. She has stated that report was lodged at P.S. Chowari and thereafter she was took for her medical examination in Chowari hospital but since no lady doctor was available therefore she was took to Civil Hospital Nurpur for her medical examination. She has stated that she was medically examined in Civil Hospital Nurpur by lady medical officer on 3.7.2012. She has stated that thereafter she located the place of incident where accused had committed sexual intercourse in Ghugar forest. She has stated that photographs were obtained and videography was also conducted. She has stated that photographs are Ext.PW7/F-1 to Ext.PW7/F-4. She has stated that thereafter she produced her clothes i.e. salwar Ext.P2, underwear Ext.PW3 and cotton cloth Ext.P4 which she was wearing at the time of incident. She has stated that her mother had deserted her father about 10-12 years back. She has stated that when sexual intercourse was committed upon her then bleeding came out which was wiped with cotton cloth. She has stated that her Xray was also conducted. She has stated that when she was dragged forcibly she sustained scratches upon her feet. She has denied suggestion that she did not accompany her cousins during night hours. She has denied suggestion that accused did not meet her during midnight in forest area. She has denied suggestion that her husband Anil was also present in ceremony. She has stated that when she was dragged forcibly she sustained scratches upon her feet. She has denied suggestion that she did not accompany her cousins during night hours. She has denied suggestion that accused did not meet her during midnight in forest area. She has denied suggestion that her husband Anil was also present in ceremony. She has denied suggestion that she had called him to forest area during night. She has denied suggestion that when she came back from ceremony she was along with Anil Sharma with whom she was married later on. She has denied suggestion that when her meeting with Anil during night hours in forest became open she fled away from her native place and solemnized marriage with Anil at Nurpur. She has denied suggestion that her cousins were aware that she was eloped in forest with Anil with whom she subsequently married. She has denied suggestion that after solemnization of marriage with Anil she implicated the accused in false case in order to save her honour. 9.12 PW12 Rangeel Singh has stated that he is agriculturist by profession and he has two children i.e. one daughter and one son. He has stated that his wife deserted him about 16 years back leaving behind children with him. He has stated that on 1.7.2012 there was ceremony in the house of Jaram Singh in village Ghangar. He has stated that prosecutrix had gone to attend the ceremony. He has stated that he also attended the ceremony but he came back at 1.30 AM during night. He has stated that he found prosecutrix nervous and he questioned the prosecutrix about cause of her nervousness and thereafter prosecutrix disclosed that on 1.7.2012 during midnight when she was returning to home with cousins the accused stopped them and asked her cousins to bring Sunil. He has stated that prosecutrix also disclosed that thereafter accused took prosecutrix to nearby forest and committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix against her consent. He has stated that thereafter he took the prosecutrix to Pardhan of local Panchayat and Pardhan advised him to report the matter in police station. He has stated that thereafter he went to Tehsil office Chowari along with prosecutrix and complaint Ext.PW11/A was dictated by prosecutrix. He has stated that thereafter complaint was presented before SDM Chowari who appended his signatures and advised him and prosecutrix to visit police station. He has stated that thereafter he went to Tehsil office Chowari along with prosecutrix and complaint Ext.PW11/A was dictated by prosecutrix. He has stated that thereafter complaint was presented before SDM Chowari who appended his signatures and advised him and prosecutrix to visit police station. He has stated that thereafter complaint Ext.PW11/A was filed in police station. He has stated that his daughter was brought by police for her medical examination to Chowari hospital but no medical officer was present and therefore prosecutrix was took to civil hospital Nurpur for her medical examination. He has stated that MLC of prosecutrix is Ext.PW1/B. He has stated that prosecutrix produced her clothes before police and clothes were sealed in parcel. He has denied suggestion that in ceremony his son-in-law Anil was also present. He has denied suggestion that prosecutrix was alongwith Anil during midnight. 9.13 PW13 LC Anjna Kumari has stated that she was posted as General Duty Constable in P.S. Chowari. She has stated that on 3.7.2012 she took prosecutrix to medical officer FRU Chowari for her medical examination. She has stated that no lady medical officer was available at Chowari and thereafter prosecutrix was referred for her medical examination to civil hospital Nurpur. She has stated that prosecutrix was medically examined at civil hospital Nurpur and after medical examination medical officer delivered her two sealed parcels containing clothes of prosecutrix along with envelope addressed to RFSL Dharamshala. She has stated that she also collected MLC of prosecutrix along with Xray film from concerned doctor. She has stated that she handed over the parcels and envelope to MHC Rajpal and handed over the X-ray film and MLC to investigating officer. She has stated that sealed parcels remained intact in her custody. 9.14 PW14 HC Man Singh has stated that he performed temporary duty as MHC in P.S. Chowari. He has stated that on 4.7.2012 LC Anjna Kumari handed over to him two sealed parcels containing clothes of prosecutrix along with one envelope. He has stated that on receipt of same he made entry in malkhana register 19 at Sr. No. 119 on the same day. He has stated that ASI Parvesh Kumar on aforesaid date handed over to him two sealed parcels and one envelope and entry to this effect was made by him immediately in malkhana register No. 19 at Sr. No. 120. No. 119 on the same day. He has stated that ASI Parvesh Kumar on aforesaid date handed over to him two sealed parcels and one envelope and entry to this effect was made by him immediately in malkhana register No. 19 at Sr. No. 120. He has stated that on next day i.e. 5.7.2012 ASI Parvesh Kumar handed over to him one sealed parcel which was recorded in record at Sr. No. 121. He has stated that extract of malkhana register is Ext.PW14/A containing two leaves and further stated that case property remained safe in his custody. 9.15 PW15 HC Rajpal has stated that he was posted as MHC in P.S. Chowari. He has stated that w.e.f. 3.7.2012 to 7.7.2012 he was on leave and during his leave period HC Man Singh had performed his duty in his absence. He has stated that on 13.7.2012 he handed over two sealed parcels containing clothes, pubic hairs, vaginal swab of prosecutrix and clothes of accused along with two envelopes to C. Sudarshan Kumar vide RC No. 46 of 2012 with direction to deposit the same in RFSL Dharamshala. He has stated that he brought original record and stated that case property remained safe in his custody. 9.16 PW16 Kanta has stated that she is housewife and prosecutrix is her niece. She has stated that she does not know anything about case. Witness was declared hostile. She has denied suggestion that on 1.7.2012 she had gone to village of Jaram Singh to attend ceremony along with prosecutrix. She has stated that she went alone to attend ceremony. She has denied suggestion that prosecutrix along with her cousins Trilok, Rakesh Kumar and Manish Kumar returned back from function during midnight. She has denied suggestion that during intervening night of 1.7.2012 and 2.7.2012 at about 1 AM accused Ravinder had committed indecent act with prosecutrix. She has denied suggestion that she came to know from father of prosecutrix that accused took prosecutrix to forest and committed rape with prosecutrix. She has denied suggestion that she came to know from father of prosecutrix that accused had criminally intimidated the prosecutrix. She has admitted that in her presence prosecutrix produced her clothes i.e. salwar Ext.P2, underwear Ext.P3 and blood stained towel Ext.P4. She has also admitted that clothes were sealed in parcel. She has admitted that accused is known to her. She has denied suggestion that she came to know from father of prosecutrix that accused had criminally intimidated the prosecutrix. She has admitted that in her presence prosecutrix produced her clothes i.e. salwar Ext.P2, underwear Ext.P3 and blood stained towel Ext.P4. She has also admitted that clothes were sealed in parcel. She has admitted that accused is known to her. She has stated that accused is resident of her village. She has stated that prosecutrix was eloped with a boy thereafter she advised prosecutrix to solemnise marriage with him. She has stated that marriage of prosecutrix was solemnised at Nurpur. 9.17 PW17 ASI Parvesh Kumar has stated that he is posted as investigating officer in P.S. Chowari. He has stated that on 3.7.2012 on receipt of application Ext.PW11/A from prosecutrix he registered FIR Ext.PW7/A. He has stated that he moved application Ext.PW1/A for medical examination of prosecutrix before medical officer Chowari. He has stated that no lady medical officer was available at Chowari and therefore prosecutrix was took to civil hospital Nurpur for her medical examination. He has stated that after medical examination of prosecutrix in civil hospital Nurpur medical officer handed over two sealed parcels containing clothes of prosecutrix and also handed over one envelope addressed to RFSL Dharamshala and thereafter case property was deposited with MHC P.S. Chowari. He has stated that MLC and X-ray film also obtained. He has stated that ossification test of prosecutrix was also conducted. He has stated that X-ray films of prosecutrix Ext.PW17/C-1 to Ext.PW17/C-7 also obtained. He has stated that he recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. He has stated that he also filed application Ext.PW17/E for medical examination of accused and obtained MLC of accused. As per MLC accused was capable for performing sexual intercourse. He has stated that he also located place of occurrence at the instance of prosecutrix and prepared site plan Ext.PW17/F and marginal notes of same are in his hands. He has stated that he also took photographs Ext.PW17/F-1 to Ext.PW17/F-14 and further stated that prosecutrix had also produced her clothes salwar Ext.P2, underwear Ext.P3, blood stained towel Ext.P4 and sealed the same in cloth parcel. He has stated that he also prepared seizure memo. He has stated that disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. He has stated that he also took photographs Ext.PW17/F-1 to Ext.PW17/F-14 and further stated that prosecutrix had also produced her clothes salwar Ext.P2, underwear Ext.P3, blood stained towel Ext.P4 and sealed the same in cloth parcel. He has stated that he also prepared seizure memo. He has stated that disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. He has stated that he also prepared spot map Ext.PW7/A. He has stated that accused produced his clothes i.e. lower and underwear which were took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW7/D. He has stated that he also collected birth certificate Ext.PW5/C and also collected extract of family register Ext.PW5/D from Secretary Gram Panchayat. He has stated that as per investigation it was found that on intervening night of 1.7.2012 and 2.7.2012 accused committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix against her consent after taking her in nearby forest when prosecutrix was returning back from village Ghangar after attending religious ceremony. He has stated that on 10.7.2012 C. Susheel Kumar produced before him photographs and two CDs with regard to proceedings of case. He has stated that he sealed CDs in parcel Ext.PW17/L and on 13.7.2012 MHC Rajpal handed over five sealed parcels containing clothes of prosecutrix and accused along with vaginal swab, pubic hair of prosecutrix and accused, two sealed envelopes to C.Sudarshan Kumar vide RC No. 46 of 2012. He has stated that report from RFSL Dharamshala Ext.PW17/M also received and thereafter final report was submitted before Judicial Magistrate. He has stated that disclosure statement of accused was also recorded. He has denied suggestion that accused remained in ceremony till morning. He has stated that during interrogation accused disclosed that after committing sexual intercourse with prosecutrix he returned back to ceremony. He has denied suggestion that prosecutrix did not return along with Manish, Rakesh and Trilok during midnight. He has denied suggestion that Manish, Rakesh and Trilok came next morning from religious ceremony. He has denied suggestion that accused did not follow prosecutrix and also denied suggestion that accused did not commit sexual intercourse with prosecutrix against her will and consent. He has stated that he does not know whether Anil had visiting terms with prosecutrix. 10. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that few days prior to the incident father of prosecutrix got a grant from Panchayat for construction of house. He has stated that he does not know whether Anil had visiting terms with prosecutrix. 10. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that few days prior to the incident father of prosecutrix got a grant from Panchayat for construction of house. He has stated that father of prosecutrix asked his father to sell the land adjoining to his house but his father refused to sell the same. He has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in present case. One witness was examined in defence by accused. 11. DW1 Jaram Singh has stated that on 1.7.2012 there was function in his residence and he had called four persons namely Ravinder who is accused in present case, Pirthi Singh, Raju and Bhushan. He has stated that he has entrusted the job of collecting utensils, fuel wood and cleaning of kitchen to accused Ravinder. He has stated that he had given tea material to accused Ravinder to entertain the guests during ceremony. He has stated that Ravinder left his home next morning i.e. 2.7.2012 at about 8 AM. He has stated that while preparing tea accused Ravinder did not go anywhere and remained confined to job entrusted to him. He has denied suggestion that accused Ravinder took prosecutrix to nearby forest and committed sexual intercourse. He has denied suggestion that he offered drinks to persons who participated in function. He has also denied suggestion that accused Ravinder is his relative. 12. Prosecution produced following documentaries evidence. (1) Ext.PW1/A Copy of application to medical officer for medical examination of prosecutrix. (2) Ext.PW1/B MLC of prosecutrix aged 18 years. (3) Ext.PW5/A Application to Panchayat Secretary to supply copy of family register. (4) Ext.PW5/B Copy of family register kept by Panchayat. (5) Ext.PW5/C age certificate of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was born on dated 03-03-1992. (6) Ext.PW6/A seizure memo regarding recovery of salwar, underwar and blood stained towel. (7) Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B statements of accused recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. (8) Ext.PW7/C sample of seal. (9) Ext.PW7/D seizure memo regarding recovery of lower and underwear of accused. (10) Ext.PW7/E memo regarding recovery of CDs. (11) Ext.PW7/F-1 to Ext.PW7/F-4 photographs of place of incident. (12) Ext.PW7/G sample seal upon plain cloth. (13) Ext.PW11/A Copy of criminal complaint filed by prosecutrix. (14) Ext.PW14/A Extract of malkhana register. (15) Ext.PW15/A Copy of RC. (8) Ext.PW7/C sample of seal. (9) Ext.PW7/D seizure memo regarding recovery of lower and underwear of accused. (10) Ext.PW7/E memo regarding recovery of CDs. (11) Ext.PW7/F-1 to Ext.PW7/F-4 photographs of place of incident. (12) Ext.PW7/G sample seal upon plain cloth. (13) Ext.PW11/A Copy of criminal complaint filed by prosecutrix. (14) Ext.PW14/A Extract of malkhana register. (15) Ext.PW15/A Copy of RC. (16) Ext.PW17/A Copy of FIR. (17) Ext.PW17/C-1 to Ext.PW17/C-7 copies of X-rays. (18) Ext.PW17/C-8 X-ray form of prosecutrix. (19) Application to medical officer for medical examination of accused Ravinder. (20) Ext.PW17/F Spot map of incident. (21) Ext.PW17/G Sample seal upon plain cloth. (22) Ext.PW7/K Site plan. (23) Ext.PW17/L CD. (24) Ext.PW17/M RFSL report Dharamshala H.P. (25) Ext.PY MLC of accused Ravinder. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that testimony of prosecutrix is wholly unreliable due to conduct of prosecutrix and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimony of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that on 1.7.2012 in the evening at about 7.15 PM she along with her aunt Kanta Devi had gone to attend the ceremony in house of Jaram Singh in village Ghangar. Prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that till 12.45 AM midnight she witnessed the ceremony and thereafter she returned back to her house along with her cousins Manish, Rakesh and Trilok. Prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that accused Ravinder @ Raju stopped them and inquired about Sunil. Prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that accused directed her cousins Manish, Rakesh and Trilok to bring Sunil and asked her to wait till they returned back with Sunil. Prosecutrix has stated that when Manish, Rakesh and Trilok went to bring Sunil thereafter accused forcibly took prosecutrix towards forest area and she raised cries but her mouth was gagged by accused. Prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that thereafter accused committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix without her consent. Prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that accused put off her clothes forcibly after gagging her mouth. Prosecutrix has further stated that after committing sexual intercourse accused told prosecutrix that if she would disclose the incident to any family members including wife of accused then she would be killed. Prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that accused put off her clothes forcibly after gagging her mouth. Prosecutrix has further stated that after committing sexual intercourse accused told prosecutrix that if she would disclose the incident to any family members including wife of accused then she would be killed. Testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated by testimony of PW1 medical officer who has specifically stated that prosecutrix had sustained following injuries upon her body i.e. (1) Scratch marks on left side of back which was less 72 hours in duration about 1 cm in length. (2) There was abrasion about 0.5 cm in size linear on left scapula reddish in colour of same duration. (3) There was abrasion on right scapula reddish in colour. (4) There was abrasion on inner surface of labia minora reddish in colour in inflammed nature. (5) Hymen of unmarried prosecutrix aged 18 years was torn at 7 O’clock position. PW1 medical officer has corroborated the testimony of prosecutrix that sexual intercourse was committed within 72 hours. PW1 has stated in positive manner that human semen was detected on vaginal slides of prosecutrix which was suggestive of sexual intercourse. Testimony of prosecutrix is further corroborated by MLC Ext.PW1/B placed on record. Testimony of prosecutrix is further corroborated by report submitted by RFSL Ext.PW17/M wherein it is specifically mentioned that human semen was detected on vaginal slides of prosecutrix and underwear of accused. 14. Testimony of prosecutrix is further corroborated by PW4 who has specifically stated that on 3.7.2012 prosecutrix along with her father came to her residence and disclosed that on 1.7.2012 accused torn the clothes of prosecutrix and committed forcibly sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. Even PW4 has specifically stated in positive manner that on earlier occation also Kanta aunt of prosecutrix came to her and complained that accused present in Court after consuming liquor had forcibly entered into the room of prosecutrix and thereafter he was taken out forcibly. 15. Testimony of prosecutrix is further corroborated by testimony of PW12 Rangeel Singh father of prosecutrix. PW12 Rangeel Singh father of prosecutrix has specifically stated that he found that prosecutrix was nervous and prosecutrix has narrated the entire incident of rape to him. 15. Testimony of prosecutrix is further corroborated by testimony of PW12 Rangeel Singh father of prosecutrix. PW12 Rangeel Singh father of prosecutrix has specifically stated that he found that prosecutrix was nervous and prosecutrix has narrated the entire incident of rape to him. In view of the fact that testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated by PW1 medical officer, PW4 Pardhan of Gram Panchayat and PW13 father of prosecutrix and in view of the fact that testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated by MLC Ext.PW1/B and FSL report Ext.PW17/M it is held that testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. See (2013)7 SCC 77 (Apex Court) titled Shyam Narain vs. State (NCT of Delhi). See (2012)7 SCC 171 titled Narender vs. State (NCT of Delhi). See (2014)10 SCC 254 titled Munna vs. State of M.P. See (2013)14 SCC 588 titled Datta vs. State of Maharashtra. See (1989)1 SCC 432 titled Prithi vs. State. See (2015)4 SCC 491 titled Ravinder vs. State of M.P. See (2014)10 SCC 327 titled Mukesh vs. State of Chattisgarh. See (2013)4 SCC 200 titled State of Haryana vs. Basti Ram. See (2012)11 SCC 362 titled O.M. Baby through LRs vs. State of Kerala. See (2011)2 SCC 550 titled State of U.P. vs. Chhoteylal. See (2013)14 SCC 481 titled Mohd. Iqbal vs. State of Jharkhand. 16. It is well settled law that in rape cases direct evidence is not avaiable. It is well settled law that testimony of victim in sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons looking for corroboration of her statement Court should find no difficulty to act upon testimony of victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused where testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is well settled law that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every rape case. It is well settled law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It is well settled law that a woman or girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion treating her as if she was an accomplice. It is well settled law that a woman or girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion treating her as if she was an accomplice. It is well settled law that normally no woman would come forward to make a humiliating statement against her honour of having been raped unless it was true. It is well settled law that testimony of prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of entire case and Court must be alive to its responsibility and should be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation. (See: (1996)2 SCC 384 , titled State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others. Also see (2000)5 SCC 30 titled State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. the accused. Also see (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State vs. Lekh Raj and another. Also see (1992)3 SCC 204 titled Madan Gopal Kakkad versus Naval Dubey and another). 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that in view of testimonies of Manish, Trilok and Rakesh appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of Manish, Rakesh and Trilok. Manish, Rakesh and Trilok have been declared hostile by prosecution. Testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated by (1) Medical evidence, (2) Testimony of father of prosecutrix. (3) Testimony of Pardhan. On contrary at the time of commission of rape PW2, PW9 and PW10 were not present and at the time of rape prosecutrix and accused were only present because rape was committed in forest during midnight by accused. Hence it is held that testimonies of PW2, PW9 and PW10 are not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of prosecutrix which is corroborated by medical evidence, RFSL report, testimony of father of prosecutrix and testimony of Pardhan of Gram Panchayat. Even concept falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal proceedings. See: AIR 1980 S.C.957 Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 1971 S.C. 2505 Rai Singh Vs. The State of Haryana. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that Sunil material witness was not examined by prosecution and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. See: AIR 1980 S.C.957 Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 1971 S.C. 2505 Rai Singh Vs. The State of Haryana. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that Sunil material witness was not examined by prosecution and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that Sunil is not eye witness of rape and Court is of the opinion that no application was filed by appellant before learned trial Court for examination of Sunil. Even Sunil was not produced as defence witness in order to contradict the testimony of prosecutrix which was corroborated by medical officer, RFSL report and which is also corroborated by father of prosecutrix and Pardhan of Gram Panchayat. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that two views are possible in present case and on the basis of two views benefit of doubt be given to accused is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that theory of two views is possible only when there are contradictory statements in testimonies of eye witnesses of incident. In present case there is no independent eye witness of rape except the prosecutrix because offence of rape was committed during midnight after 1 AM in forest. PW2, PW9, PW10 and DW1 Jaram Singh are not eye witnesses of incident and they were not present when rape was committed by accused upon prosecutrix during midnight in forest who was unmarried aged 18 years at the time of commission of criminal offence of rape. Hence it is held that concept of two views is not proved in present case. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that injuries on body of prosecutrx are not linked with commission of rape is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that prosecutrix had sustained three injuries i.e. (1) There was scratch mark on left side of back, three parallel lines, reddish with brown scab which was less than 72 hours in duration about 1 cm in length. (2) There was abrasion about 0.5 cm in size linear on left scapula reddish in colour of same duration. (3) There was abrasion on right scapula reddish in colour. (2) There was abrasion about 0.5 cm in size linear on left scapula reddish in colour of same duration. (3) There was abrasion on right scapula reddish in colour. (4) There was abrasion in labia minora. (5) Hymen was torn at 7 O’clock position. Incident took place between intervening night of 1.7.2012 and 2.7.2012 at 1 AM during midnight in forest and medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted on 3.7.2012 within 72 hours of incident and medical officer has specifically stated in positive manner that injury sustained by prosecutrix upon her body occurred within duration of less than 72 hours. Hence it is held that injuries sustained by prosecutrix are directly linked with criminal offence of rape committed upon prosecutrix by accused. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that prosecutrix did not state that accused had removed her salwar for committing the offence of rape and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Prosecutrix has stated in positive manner when she appeared in witness box that accused put off her clothes forcibly and gagged her mouth and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her and also threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody. Above stated testimony of prosecutrix is trusworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of prosecutrix. 22. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that DNA of accused was not conducted and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that DNA test is not mandatory requirement in law. It is well settled law that accused can be convicted simply on testimony of prosecutrix if testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. Even in present case accused did not file any application before learned trial Court for his DNA test. 23. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that prosecutrix had love affairs with Anil to whom she later on married and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no positive cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that Anil had committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix in the midnight of 1.7.2012 and 2.7.2012. There is no positive cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that Anil had committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix in the midnight of 1.7.2012 and 2.7.2012. Even appellant did not file any application for examination of Anil when learned trial Court had given opportunity to appellant to lead defence evidence. Plea of appellant that Anil had committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix during midnight of 1.7.2012 and 2.7.2012 is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made by person without proof.) 24. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that testimony of PW4 Geeta Devi is not reliable is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW4 Geeta Devi was Pardhan of Gram Panchayat and matter was reported to Pardhan of Gram Panchayat by prosecutrix along with her father and PW4 Geeta Devi has specifically stated that prosecutrix had informed her that she was raped by accused in forest during midnight of 1.7.2012 and 2.7.2012 and PW4 has further stated that on earlier occasion also accused had entered into the residential room of prosecutrix and he was forcibly turned out by relatives. 25. Even criminal offence of rape against appellant is also proved beyond reasonable doubt as per disclosure statement given by accused under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. PW7 Sushil Kumar has specifically stated in positive manner that accused had given disclosure statement and as per disclosure statement accused had handed over his underwear which was worn by accused at the time of commission of offence. Disclosure statement given by accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW7 Sushil Kumar. Even semen was found upon underwear of accused as per chemical analyst report placed on record. 26. Disclosure statement given by accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW7 Sushil Kumar. Even semen was found upon underwear of accused as per chemical analyst report placed on record. 26. Facts of case cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant i.e. (2012)8 SCC 21 titled Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2012)7 SCC 171 titled Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2010)12 SCC 115 titled Abbas Ahman Choudhary vs. State of Assam, (2010)3 SCC 232 titled Dinesh Jaiswal vs. State of M.P., (2009) 15 SCC 566 titled Tameezuddin alias Tammu v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2009 SC 858 titled Rajoo vs. State of M.P., (2007)12 SCC 57 titled Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and (2003)3 SCC 175 titled Vimal Suresh Kamble vs. Chaluverapinaka Apal (1997)3 SCC 41 titled Pratap Misra & others vs. State of Orissa and facts of present case are entirely different. Hence case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant are not applicable in facts of present case because facts of cases cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant did not relate to criminal offence of rape committed during midnight at 1 AM in forest and there are no similar reports of medical evidence, FSL report, testimony of father of prosecutrix and Pardhan of Gram Panchayat. 27. In present case accused committed rape upon prosecutrix at that time when accused was a married person aged 32 years and prosecutrix was unmarried girl aged 18 years. Court is of the opinion that murder destroys the body of victim but rapist degrades the soul of unmarried girl. Court is of the opinion that anarchy will prevail in society if married man aged 32 years is allowed to commit rape upon unmarried girl aged 18 years. In order to maintain majesty of law and in order to maintain honour of unmarried girl Court is of the opinion that it would be expedient in the ends of justice to maintain the sentence passed by learned trial Court. 28. In order to maintain majesty of law and in order to maintain honour of unmarried girl Court is of the opinion that it would be expedient in the ends of justice to maintain the sentence passed by learned trial Court. 28. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that few days prior to alleged incident father of prosecutrix obtained grant from Panchayat for construction of house and thereafter father of prosecutrix asked father of accused to sell the land adjoining to his house but father of accused refused and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Plea of appellant that father of prosecutrix had requested the father of accused to sell the land adjoining to his house is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made by person without proof.) Accused did not examine his father in defence evidence in order to prove his version. 29. Even Section 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 came into operation w.ef. 20.12.1989. There is presumption as to absence of consent in rape cases when prosecutrix stated in evidence before the Court that she did not consent. In present case prosecutrix did not state that she consented for sexual intercourse to accused. Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is quoted in toto:- ”114A-Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape-In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and when she stated in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent then Court shall presume that she did not consent.” 30. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that alternatively appellant be acquitted on the ground of consent theory is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Accused did not cross-examine the prosecutrix upon consent theory before learned trial Court. Even accused did not put his defence before learned trial Court on the consent theory. Accused did not cross-examine the prosecutrix upon consent theory before learned trial Court. Even accused did not put his defence before learned trial Court on the consent theory. Hence it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow the appellant to raise the plea of consent theory at appellate stage of case for the first time. No suggestion has been given by appellant at any point of time to prosecutrix that present case was a case of consent. Every girl or woman has fundamental constitutional right to live in society with dignity and honour and sexual assault indirect attacked upon dignity and honour of girl or woman which should be controlled in order to maintain majesty of law and in order to maintain harmony in society. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative against the appellant. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 31. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. Judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court affirmed. It is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that no miscarriage of justice is caused to appellant. File of learned trial Court along with ceritified copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith. Appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.