Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Meer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(4)WLN485
JUDGMENT Garg, J.
(1). This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.4.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Case No. 25/97 by which he convicted the accused appellant of the charges of the offence under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:-
Name of accused appellants Convicted under/Section Sentence awarded Meer Singh 3761PC Seven years Rl and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months SI 341 IPC One month SI 447 IPC Two months SI 323 IPC Three months SI All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2). It arises in the following circumstances:
On 16.8.1997 at about 5.00 p.m. PW-8 Vimla D/o Mailal (hereinafter referred to as the proseculrix) lodged a report Ex.P/12 before PW-9, Rai Singh Baniwat, SHO, Police Station, Hameerwas, District Churu stating inter alia that she was a married lady and on 16.8.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. she went to her field alongwith cow and goats for the purpose of grazing the cows and goats and when she was opening in Chhikiyas of cows and goats, at that time accused appellant asked her from the field of Harphool to come and help him in putting up the Bharothi, upon which, she stated that she was opening the Chhikiyas and, thereafter, accused appellant came near to her and caught hold her hands and then took her to the field of Harphool, where crops of Bajari were standing and, thereafter, accused appellant told her to put off her clothes, upon which she refused and, thereupon, accused appellant caught hold her both hands and put her down in Bajari and after forcibly opening the Nada of her Salwar, accused appellant committed rape on her and she made hue and cry, but nobody was there and after committing rape on her, accused appellant threatened her that in case she tried to tell this incident to anybody, he would kill her. Thereafter, she came to her house and told the whole story to PW-7 Dhankori and PW-6 Mailal and then, this report was lodged.
On this report, police registered the case and chalked out FIR Ex.P/13 and started investigation.
During investigation, through Ex.P.10, Salwar of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimlawas seized and through Ex.P/11, her Jampher was seized. The broken bangles of the prosecutrix were also seized through Ex.P/9 by PW-9 Rai Singh in presence of PW-4 Pratap and PW-5 Malaram. The accused appellant was arrested through Ex.P/16. The prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla was got medically examined by PW-1 Dr.R.L. Bansal and her medical examination report is Ex.P/2.
After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused appellant in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.
On 8.10.1997, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 376 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.
During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, four witnesses were produced by the accused appellant.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh through his judgment and order dated 15.4.1998 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia:-
1. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla is reliable one.
2. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla gets corroboration from the statements of PW-6 Mailal, her father and PW-7 Dhankori, her mother.
3. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla is further corroborated by the statement of PW-9 Rai Singh, SHO and IO in the present case and further from the conditions found on the place of scene, such as broken bangles were found on the place of scene etc.
4. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla gets further corroboration from medical evidence.
5. That defence evidence found in the statements of DW-2 Mahaveer, DW-3 Chandrabhan and DW-4 Hoshiyarsingh was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 15.4.1998, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant.
(3). In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant:-
1. That statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla should not be believed as there are some contradictions in her statement.
2. That it is a case of consent and since the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla did not receive any injury on her private part, case of forcible intercourse should not have been believed by the learned trial Court.
3. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
(4). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh.
(5). i have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.
(6). Before proceeding further, first medical evidence should be discussed here, which is found in the statement of Dr.R.L. Bansal, PW-1.
(7). PW-1 Dr.R.L. Bansal states in his statement that on 16.8.1997 he was Medical Officer in Referral Hospital, Rajgarh and on that day, he medically examined prosecu-trix PW-8 Vimla and found following injuries on her person:-
1. Linear abrasion 2.5 cm long on left cheek redish in colour.
2. Bruise 2x1 cm on left cheek slightly redish.
3. Abrasion linear 1.5 cm on left shoulder top redish in colour.
4. C/o pain over left wrist, both gluteal region and lower lip.
In cross examination, this witness states that duration of injuries of the prosecutrix was not mentioned in the report Ex.P/2, but he has admitted that injuries were fresh and should have been caused within two hours from the time of examination.
(8). Thus, from the evidence of PW-1 Dr.R.L. Bansal, it appears that prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla received injuries which are mentioned in her report Ex.P/2.
(9). In this case, the alleged incident took place at 10.00 a.m. on 16.8.1997 and the report Ex.P./12 was lodged by the prosecutrix PW-8 on the very day at about 5.00 p.m. Thus, there is no delay in lodging the report Ex.P/12. In the report Ex.P/12, whole version how rape was committed by the accused appellant the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla has been clearly mentioned. This report has been proved by the statements of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla and PW-6 Mailal.
(10). PW-8 Vimla has clearly stated through her statement that on the relevant date, when she want to graze the goats etc., accused appellant called her from the field of Harphool for the purpose of lifting Bharothi and upon this, she refused and then accused appellant came near to her and caugh hold her hands forcibly and in doing so, her bangles were broken and thereafter, accused appellant dragged her towards the field of Harphool and opened her paijama and put her on the ground and removed her Salwar and gaged her mouth and pressed her breasts and, thereafter, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. This part of her statement further gets corroboration from the statement of PW-7 Dhankori, who is mother of the prosecutrix and to whom, prosecutrix narrated the whole story just after the occurrence. Similarly, PW-6 Mailal, father of the prosecutrix, also corroborates the statement of the prosecutrix. Not only this. PW-6 Mailal further states that on 16.8.1997 he was called by PW-7 Dhankori and narrated to him the whole story which was narrated to her by the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla and then he informed other persons about the alleged incident and they advised that report should be lodged. Similarly, from the statement of PW-5 Malaram, it further appears that he was invited by PW-6 Mailal and whole incident was narrated to him.
(11). Thus, in this case, there is ample evidence which corroborates the statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla.
(12). Apart from this, site plan which was prepared by PW-9 Rai Singh on the spot further corroborates the statement of the prosecutrix PW-8, as on the spot broken bangles of the prosecutrix were found, which were seized by PW-9 Rai Singh through Ex.P/9. The broken bangles of the prosecutrix were marked as article-A/4, her Chunni was marked as Article-1, her Salwar, which was seized through Ex.P./10, was marked as Article-2 and her jampher which was seized through Ex.P./11 was marked as Article-3. The F.S.L. report is Ex.P/18, which shows that on her Salwar, which was marked as Article-2 in the present case, human semen was found. This also corroborates the statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla on the point of rape.
(13). In rape case, the main evidence is that of the victim herself. In practice a conviction for rape almost entirely depends on the credibility of the woman, so far as the essential ingredients are concerned, the other evidence being merely corroborative. It is not necessary that there should be independent corroboralion of even material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the complainant is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.
(14). In the present case, it is amply clear from the statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla that her mouth was gaged by the accused appellant; her breasts were pressed by the accused appellant; when she resisted her bangles were broken and received injuries and on her Salwar, which was marked as Article-2, human semen was found. The statement of the proseculrix PW-8 Vimla, as already staled above, gets corroboration from the statements of PW-7 Dhankori, her mother and PW-6 Mailal, her father.
(15). Thus, looking to the evidence of the prosecutrix, which is further corroborated by other evidence and medical evidence, only one conclusion can be drawn and the same is that present accused appellant has forcibly committed sexual intercourse, with the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla.
(16). It may be stated here that if minor contradictions are found in the statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla, they are bound to occur, as they are natural one. Therefore, from this point of view also, the case of the prosecution as well as statement of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla does not suffer from any infirmity in any manner and rather, her statement appears to be reliable one.
(17). From the above circumstances, it cannot be inferred that it was a case of commission of sexual intercourse with consent. Hence, theory of consent is rejected.
(18). During the course of arguments, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that as per report Ex.P/2, it does not appear that prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla received injuries on her private part.
(19). No doubt prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla did not receive any injury on her private part, but she has received other injuries, which have been discussed above. Therefore, this aspect would not affect the case of the prosecution and would also not affect the veracity of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla.
(20). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjeet Hazarika vs. State of Assam (1) has held that if there is absence of injury on private part of victim, it does not belie her testimony. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that even in rape case, corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix by medical evidence was not essential.
(21). So far as facts of the present case are concerned, as staled above, there is straightforward statement of the prosecutrix Vimla which is found in her statement recorded as PW- 8 and injuries on her person other than on private part corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix and the most important thing is that her evidence is further corroborated by the statements of her mother PW-7 Dhankori and PW-6 Mailal, to whom she immediately informed about the alleged occurrence.
(22). Hence, in the present case, if no injury on private part of the prosecutrix PW-8 Vimla is found, it would not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner and this argument carries no weight.
(23). For the reasons stated above, I do not find that any error has been committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Churu in convicting the accused appellant for the offence of rape. Hence, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh convicting the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 376, 341, 447 and 323 IPC are liable to be confirmed and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Meer Singh is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 15.4.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Churu).