Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharamvir S/O Ram Bilas vs The State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2003
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J.
1. By this judgment, I shall be disposing of four cases (viz. Criminal Appeal Nos. 316 SB and 344 SB of 1989 and Criminal Revision Nos. 1051 and 1052 of 1989). However, the judgment is being prepared in Criminal Appeal No. 316-SB of 1989.
2. Dharamvir and Maha Singh appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide impugned judgment dated 17-7-1989 as under:
Under Section 376 IPC RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer further RI for six months.
Under Section 366 IPC RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer further RI for six months.
3. However, both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
4. Raj Rani (PW-12) is the prosecutrix in this case. She is daughter of Ram Kishan (PW-11).
5. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 16-10-1988 when Ram Kishan returned to his house after performing his duty, his wife Premo told him that their daughter Raj Rani was not traceable and had left her home at about 3-00 PM. Search was made for her in the neighbourhood and at the houses of other relatives but to no effect. It had also transpired that Dharamvir appellant, their neighbour was also missing. On the next day, i.e. 17-10-1988, Ram Kishan learnt that his daughter was lying admitted in General Hospital Safidon in unconscious condition. He alongwith his wife rushed to the said hospital and saw their daughter. While returning to Jind on 18-10-1988, he lodged the FIR with SI Shiv Dayal (PW15), expressing his doubt that Dharamvir appellant might have abducted Raj Rani. SI Shiv Dayal reached the hospital and came to know that Dharamvir was also lying admitted there. He sought the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Raj Rani and also of Dharamvir to make a statement. However, both of them were declared unfit to make a statement. SI Shiv Dayal (PW5) then visited the hospital on many dates and moved applications before the doctor concerned to seek opinion regarding their fitness to make a statement. It was only on 19-11-1988 that the statement of Raj Rani was recorded at her home when she was discharged from the hospital. In her statement, Raj Rani stated that on 16-10-1988 when she was alone in the house, Dharamvir appellant came there and gave her parsad, after eating the same, she felt intoxicated and thereafter on the asking of Dharamvir, she followed him. She was taken to the bus-stop of Safidon by-pass, from where they boarded a bus for Safidon. On the way Maha Singh appellant also met besides another person whose name she did not know (not arrested during investigation). They also boarded the said bus. Those persons took her to Safidon and then to the house of Dharamvir appellant, where his father reprimanded them and asked them to run away from there. Thereafter she was taken to the railway station and then to a room near the station. after taking her inside the room, the cord (string) of her salwar was opened by Maha Singh appellant, who committed rape upon her. She then saw Dharamvir removing his pant but thereafter she became unconscious and thus could not tell as to what happened with her. Maha Singh appellant was arrested on 4.12.1988. He was got medically examined from Dr. R.P. Taneja (PW1), who vide report Exhibit PA found him capable of committing sexual intercourse. Site-plan (Exhibit PU) of the place of occurrence was got prepared. When Raj Rani was examined by Dr. A.K. Suri (PW-5), her name was not known to the doctor. At that time she was unconscious. The initial medico legal report prepared by Dr. Suri indicates the injuries on her person. At that time, he did not feel the necessity of medically examining Raj Rani to ascertain whether rape had been committed upon her or not. It was only after registration of the case that Raj Rani was got medico legally examined on 19.10.1988 from Dr. Manjula Bansal (PW-2).
6. For the purpose of ascertaining the age of Raj Rani, Dr. Manjula Bansal advised x-ray examination and thereafter on 27.10.1988, Dr. G.D. Gupta Radiologist (PW-4) conducted x-ray of pelvis and both wrist joint and vide his report (Exhibit PE) concluded that she was between 9 to 14 years of age.
7. On committal proceedings, the appellants were charged under Sections 366/34 I.P.C. and Section 376 I.P.C.
8. In order to substantiate its case against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses.
PW-1 is Dr. R.P. Taneja, who on 4.12.1988 medico legally examined Maha Singh appellant and found him to be fit to perform sexual intercourse.
PW-2 is Dr. Manjula Bansal, who had examined Raj Rani prosecutrix on 19.10.1988 and found small amount of public hair and dry blood present over the parincum and medical aspect of left thigh proximal to hip joint. Clotted blood was also found present over vaginal orifice. There was also slight redness on it. The hymen was admitting two fingers. The said doctor cut the public hair, put in a phial besides two swabs, one from posterior fornix of vagina and second from cervix and put them in another phial and sealed them in a parcel. Her salwar (Exhibit P-1) and Shirt (Exhibit P-2) were also sealed in a parcel and were handed over to Constable Azad Singh along with a copy of the M.L.R. (Exhibit PC) for being sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
PW-3 is Dr. V.P. Kakkar, who had medico legally examined Dharamvir appellant on 28.10.1988 and found him to be fit to do sexual intercourse.
PW-4 is Dr. G.D. Gupta Radiologist, who had x-rayed Raj Rani for ascertaining her age. His report is Exhibit PE, the result of which was as under:-
Iliac Crest Iliac Crest Age of appearance Result Age of fusion Result Ischial tuberosi ty 14 years 14-16 years Not appear
-
-
Greater trochanter
-
-
14 years Not fused Lessor trochanter
-
-
15 to 17 years Not fused Lower end of radius 1 year Appear 16-1/2 to 18 Not fused Lower end of ulna 8 to 10 Appeared 17 Years Not fused Pisiform bone 9 to 11 years Appeared
-
-
1st to 5th Meta-carpalbone 2 to 3 years Appeared 14 to 15 years Not fused
9. From the above data the radiological age of Raj Rani is between 9 to 14 years.
PW-5 is Dr. A.K. Suri, who on 17.10.1988 had medico legally examined Raj Rani, when she was brought in the hospital as daughter of unknown. At that time, he had found the following injuries on her person:-
1. One lacerated wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the right cheek irregular margins freshly bleeding. X-ray was advised.
2. One lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep placed on fore-head in mid region irregular margins. Fresh blood was coming out. X-ray was advised.
3. One contusion 10 cm x 8 cm on right side of neck. Bleeding profusely from right ear and nostril. Any other injury to be noted by surgeon.
10. On the same day, he also medico legally examined Dharamvir appellant and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. One lacerated wound extended from left elbow joint to fore-arm, about 15 cm obliquely placed muscle strips were visible. Margins were irregular. Bleeding present and x-ray was advised.
2. One lacerated wound 12 cm x 6 cm x muscle deep placed on left fore-arm. Margins were irregular, wound was freshly bleeding and x-ray was advised.
3. One defused swelling on upper lip with laceration in the vestibula part. Freshly bleeding. Margins were irregular and x-ray was advised.
4. One lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep placed on left side of parietal bone anteriorly 2 cm from mid line. Margins were irregular and x-ray was advised.
5. Multiple abrasion on face left upper eye lid, left lower eye fore-head and on left cheek. Any other injury to be noted by the Surgeon.
11. He also talks of the applications moved by the concerned police from time to time for getting the opinion regarding the fitness of the injured to make a statement. According to this witness, Raj Rani and Dharamvir were brought to the hospital by the Sub Station Master, Safidon. According to him, injuries on the person of Raj Rani and Dharamvir could be possible by a fall and that the said injuries are said to have been caused by a fall from the train as they were found lying in a railway yard.
12. He has further stated that the girl, who had initially been admitted in the Civil Hospital, was identified by some person, who had disclosed himself to be her maternal uncle and he had informed the parents of the girl; that the parents had come in the afternoon of 17-10-1988 and had told him that she was their daughter. He has further stated that for the first time, the story of rape/abduction was brought to his notice through the application moved to him on 18-10-1988 and that the parents who had come to the hospital on 17-10-1988 had not disclosed this fact to him.
PW 6 is Gian Chand Station Master, Safidon, who has stated that on 17-10-1988 at about 6-00 AM he was called from his house by the Assistant Station Master and came to know that two injured persons i.e. a male and a girl were lying in the yard. This witness took then in unconscious condition to the Civil Hospital, Safidon in a rickshaw. He identified appellant Dharamvir and the prosecutrix Raj Rani in the Court to be the same persons, who were lying unconscious in the yard and who were taken to the Civil Hospital, Safidon.
PW 7 is Sham Lal Gupta, Draftsman, who prepared the scaled site-plan Exhibit PL of the place of occurrence.
PW-8 is Dilawar Singh Inspector/SHO, who had submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
PW-9 is Azad Singh Constable, whose evidence is to the effect that Raj Rani and Dharamvir were referred to the General Hospital Jind on 18-10-1988 by the doctors of Civil Hospital Safidon. There Raj Rani was medico legally examined and two sealed parcels were given to him by the lady doctor, which he handed over to SI Shiv Dayal.
PW-10 is Partap Singh, JBT Teacher, Government Middle School, Defence Colony, Jind. He had proved the School Leaving Certificate Exhibit P2 of Raj Rani, in which her date of birth was written as 1-5-1978.
PW-11 is Ram Kishan, father of Raj Rani.
According to this witness, the age of Raj Rani on the date of occurrence was 11-12 years and she was studying in 4th standard and that after this incident, she had left her studies. He has further stated that he lives in Government House; that Maha Singh appellant lives in the adjoining quarter and across the boundary wall on the other side JE Dharamvir appellant lives with Maha Singh appellant; that Maha Singh was key-man in their office and Dharamvir was a sewer man in the said office; that on 16-10-1988, when he returned home from duty at 6-00 PM, his wife told that Raj Rani was not traceable; that they searched for her; that on 17-10-1988, maternal uncle of Raj Rani, namely Rattna came to Jind and told that Raj Rani had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Safidon; that on reaching the hospital, they found Raj Rani in un-conscious condition, having injuries as well; that leaving behind his wife in the Safidon hospital, he came to Jind and moved an application in police station City Jind and also got recorded his statement, wherein he expressed doubt that Dharamvir might have kidnapped his daughter because he was also lying admitted in the said hospital.
PW-12 is Raj Rani, the prosecutrix. She has disclosed her age as 11-12 years when her statement was recorded by the trial Court on 26-4-1989. Since she was a child witness, certain questions were put to her by the trial Judge and it was observed by the trial Court that the witness appeared to be capable of understanding question and giving coherent replies. Thereafter her statement was recorded on oath. She was categorically stated that when on 16-10-1988 she was all alone in the house at about 3-00/4-00 PM Dharamvir appellant (correctly identified in Court) came there, offered her Parsad, she ate that parsad and started feeling giddy; that he came again after sometime and asked her to accompany him and she followed him; that he took her to Safidon by-pass, from where he got her boarded a bus; that on the way Maha Singh appellant (correctly identified in Court) and another unknown person boarded that bus; that the bus was got stopped earlier to bus stand at Safidon; that both the appellants and the third person took her to the house of Dharamvir's father; that his father turned them out of the house; that thereafter she was taken to a room, which was at a short distance from the railway station of Safidon; that appellant Maha Singh broke cord of her salwar, removed her salwar and committed immoral or bad deed. She was categorically stated that he had put his penis in her vagina and she felt acute pain. She has further stated that Dharamvir appellant had caught hold of her hands and feet and she was laid on a cot; that thereafter Dharamvir appellant removed his pant, but since she had become unconscious, she could not realise as to what happened with her thereafter; that she regained consciousness after one month of the incident and at that time she was at her house; that she gave statement to the police in her house itself. She has also stated that her statement was recorded in the Court. She identified her signatures on the statement Exhibit PS. She has stated that the said statement was made by her voluntarily without any pressure from any body. She identified her clothes in the Court.
PW-13 is SI Makhan Lal, the Investigating Officer of the case, whose evidence has already been discussed.
PW-14 is Sh. PC Gupta, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, who on 30-11-1988 had recorded the statement of Raj Rani prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. According to him he age of Raj Rani was 13 years. He has stated that at the time of recording of her statement, SI Makhan Lal had been sent out of the Court room and that neither the Assistant Public Prosecutor nor Reader or any other court official was present in the Court room.
PW-15 is SI Shiv Dayal, who has also investigated this case. His evidence has also been touched by me to some extent in the preceding paras.
13. The plea taken by Dharamvir appellant emerging from the statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that he was an employee in HUDA; Raj Rani fell in love with him and she wrote two letters to him; On 16-10-1988 he had gone to his father's home at Safidon, Raj Rani came there alone in the evening time, his father took her to task as to why she had left her father's home; His father asked him to leave Raj Rani at her father's home at Jind; He boarded a train from Safidon at 9-00 PM with Raj Rani; When the train started, she jumped from the train, saying that she would not like to go back to her father's home; In order to save her, he also jumped from the train; He had gone to Safidon on 16-10-1988 because his engagement was to take place that day with some other girl; Ram Kishan, father of Raj Rani had borrowed some money from him, which he did not return despite repeated demands; On that account, finding a suitable occasion, Ram Kishan got him falsely implicated and he was innocent.
14. Maha Singh appellant came up with the plea that he was residing near the house of Ram Kishan; He was taken into custody on 21-10-1988 from his house and after proper investigation he was released the next day as there was no evidence against him and as he was found innocent; He was arrested again on 11.11.1988 and was falsely implicated at the instance of Ganga Ram, uncle of Raj Rani, with whom he was not on good terms and Sh. Mittal SDO had also a hand in his false involvement;
15. In their defence, the appellants have examined two witnesses:
DW-1 is Om Parkash Clerk, DC Office, Jind, who talks of an application addressed by Ram Kishan to the Chief Minister, Haryana, which was ultimately sent to the Superintendent of Police, Jind for enquiry.
DW-2 is Raghbir Singh Constable, Assistant Complaint Clerk, S.P., Office, Jind, who has stated that an application purported to be of Ram Kishan was received in his office on 14.11.1988 and the said application was addressed to Industries Minister, disclosing that Dharamvir and Maha singh were the abductors besides a third person and that Maha Singh had not been arrested by the police by then.
16. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the appellants, as already indicated above. Aggrieved by the judgment of their conviction and sentence, they have come up in appeal.
17. I have heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for Dharamvir appellant, Mr. K.s. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for Maha Singh appellant and Mr. Rajnish Dhanda, learned Assistant Advocate General representing the State of Haryana. With their assistance I have gone through the entire evidence on record.
18. The first argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that Raj Rani was above 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence but she and her father Ram Kishan (PW-11) have intentionally given the age as 11-12 years. The learned counsel have further contended that the School Leaving Certificate (Ex. PQ) in which her date of birth has been shown as 1-5-1978, is not the conclusive proof of age in the absence of any other cogent evidence in the shape of Birth Certificate or any entry of the Chowkidar. Developing their arguments, learned counsel have further submitted that even according to Dr. A.K. Suri (PW-5), when Raj Rani was admitted in Civil Hospital, Safidon on 17-10-1988 has age was shown as 17 years and that Dr. Manjula Bansal (PW-2), who medically examined the prosecutrix on 19-10-1988 has also shown her age as 17 years. Even in the second examination, which is on the asking of the police, Dr. Manjula Bansal has mentioned her age as 17 years. It is then contended that the opinion of Radiologist (Exhibit PE) regarding the Ossification test to ascertain her age is not a complete test and there are chances of variation of 2-3 years on either side as such, the age of Raj Rani was around 17 years but certainly above 16 years at the time of the alleged offence.
19. The next argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that no cogent evidence has been led by the prosecution to establish the charge of rape as there are material contradictions in the statement made by the prosecutrix before the police, before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and then before the trial Court and for this reason. Raj Rani the prosecutrix has rendered herself most unreliable. It is then contended that the fact that the prosecutrix was of the age of more than 16 years and there was no injury on her private part, would go to show that no forcible intercourse was committed with her. I have been taken through the statement of Raj Rani (PW-2), the prosecutrix, and certain discrepancies and contradictions have also been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants.
20. The next contention raised is that for the reasons stated above, if prosecution version regarding the alleged rape is not believed, then in that eventuality at the most the case of the prosecution would fall within the four corners of Section 366 IPC only.
21. In the alternative, it has been prayed that a lenient view may be taken towards the quantum of sentence in respect of both the appellants.
22. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel refuting the arguments raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecutrix was of the age of 10-11 years at the time of alleged offence; that she had no reason to falsely rope in the appellants; that being a girl of tender age, if certain discrepancies have crept in her statement, that would not weaken the prosecution case in any manner and that the conviction of the appellants is liable to be maintained.
23. Learned counsel for the complainant/revisionist toeing the arguments of learned State counsel has further submitted that the punishment awarded to the appellants is inadequate and it should be enhanced. He has also submitted that the learned trial Court has not awarded any compensation to the prosecutrix and the same should now be granted.
24. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.
25. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, as per the School Leaving Certificate (Ex. PQ), her date of birth is shown as 1-5-1978. The occurrence is of 16-10-1988 when Raj Rani was taken from her house by deceitful means. She was thus 10 years and 5 months of age. The statement of Ram Kishan, (PW-11), father of the prosecutrix is also to the effect that she was of the age of 10-11 years on 16-10-1988. Raj Rani when stepped into the witness box (as PW12) has stated that her age was 10-11 years on the day of alleged occurrence. No doubt when Raj Rani was initially examined by Dr. AK Suri (PW5), her age was noticed as 17 years. There is also no dispute about the fact that there is a general tendency of giving less age by the parents at the time of admission of the child in the school. Admittedly, in the present case there is no birth entry of the Chowkidar or any certificate from the Registrar Birth and Deaths. However, in the present case the ossification test conducted by Dr. GD Gupta (PW4) shows the age of the prosecutrix between 9-14 years. In his report Exhibit PE, Dr. Gupta has given the complete data and on the basis of Exhibit PE, it can safely be held that the prosecutrix was 11-12 years of age on the date of occurrence. Another material evidence on this count is the statement of Ram Kishan (PW11), father of the prosecutrix to the effect that she had studied upto 4th standard only and thereafter she had left the studies. This fact gets corroboration from the statement of (PW10) Partap Singh, JBT Teacher, Government Middle School, Defence Colony, Jind, who has proved the School Leaving Certificate (Ex. PQ) of Raj Rani, according to which her date of birth is 1.5.1978 and remained in that school upto 4th standard. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants on this count is thus repelled and I hold that Raj Rani was of the age of around 12 years on the day of occurrence.
26. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellants regarding the charge of rape is also of no avail. The statement of Raj Rani prosecutrix is duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record. No doubt some discrepancies and contradictions have crept in her statement recorded at three different stages i.e. before the police, before the Magistrate and before the trial Court, but in my view these contradictions would not shatter the prosecution case. She has come up with a very true version saying that she was given Parsad by Dharamvir appellant and the moment she took that she started feeling giddy on account of intoxication after some time Dharamvir came to her again and asked her to accompany him and she followed him; on the way Maha Singh appellant and another unknown person also joined them; she was taken from one place to another of their choice; thereafter she was subjected to forcible intercourse in one room near the railway station, initially by Maha Singh appellant; after that she could see Dharamvir appellant putting off his pant but since she became unconscious she did not know what happened with her thereafter. If Raj Rani was to develop a story of her own to falsely implicate the appellants, she could very well say in her statement that Dharamvir appellant also committed rape upon her and thereafter she became unconscious. Her deposition rather speaks volumes of true episode. She has stated everything in true sense as to what actually happened with her.
27. The prosecution case can also be viewed from another angle. Ram Kishan (PW-11) searches for his daughter on 16-11-1988 at different places. On 17-11-1988 he comes to know from his brother-in-law Rattna that his daughter was lying admitted in Civil Hospital Safidon. He immediately rushes to the hospital with his wife. In natural course, he does not talk to the doctor because he was not aware of the true facts of the case. He however, notices Dharamvir, a neighbour also lying admitted in the same hospital. All these facts created suspicion in his mind and consequently on 18-11-1988 he lodges the report raising a finger of suspicion on Dharamvir. Maha Singh is booked subsequently when the prosecution agency came to know that he too had joined hands with Dharamvir in the commission of the crime. There is no unnatural tinge in the prosecution case.
28. Another material fact which cannot be lost sight of is that Raj Rani remained admitted in the hospital for a considerable time. She was not fit to make a statement. Her statement was ultimately recorded on 19-1-1988 by the police. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 31-11-1988. In her former statement, she has stated that after she was taken to a room surrounded by trees, Maha Singh appellant opened the cord of her salwar and then Dharamvir had opened his pant and underwear and Dharamvir committed rape upon her and she became unconscious on account of rape and there after she could not tell what happened with her. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PS), she has stated that Maha Singh had opened the cord of her salwar and when she tried to cry, accused Dharamvir put a cloth in her mouth and then Maha Singh committed rape on her and she saw accused Dharamvir removing his pant but she became un-conscious. It is true that in one statement she states that the rape was committed by Maha Singh and in her other statement she states that the rape was committed by Dharamvir. But this contradiction, in my view, would not go to the root of the case. In the present case a minor girl of tender age was made totally helpless by the appellants, who were out to satisfy their sexual lust and had kept the prosecutrix confined in a room for a considerable period. This fact can also not be ignored that she was under intoxication. There is, however, possibility that she could not fairly see as to who was actually committing rape on her at one point of time and therefore, such like minor variations in her statements have occurred. A girl of tender age under intoxication and having been raped, who had become un-conscious, is not supposed to come out with the photographic version, giving minutes details as to how the rape was committed upon her by both the appellants. The rape was committed upon her on 16-10-1988. She was medico legally examined on 19-10-1988 i.e. after three days. Even on 19-10-1988 the concerned doctor noticed the presence of redness around her vaginal orifice. All these facts go to show that Raj Rani was actually subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecution has thus beyond any shadow of doubt established the charge of rape of Raj Rani, a minor girl of the age of about 12 years, against both the appellants.
29. Though the statement (Exhibit PS) of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 165 Cr.P.C. is being believed by this Court, yet I cannot refrain myself from observing that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned has not adopted the proper legal course while recording it, which lapse on his part is condemnable. From time to time the Judicial Officers are imparted training through different courses about the procedures to record the Dying Declarations or such statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and they are supposed to follow the guide-lines properly lest any injustice is caused.
30. The defence plea taken by the appellants does not appear to be plausible. Simply that Raj Rani and Dharamvir had received injuries and both of them remained admitted in the hospital, would not be a ground to discard the prosecution story or to disbelieve the prosecutrix. At the same time in my view, Raj Rani was not supposed to explain these injuries because she had become unconscious when rape was committed upon her and ultimately, she was removed by the Station Master on the following day from the railway yard. What happened in between, Raj Rani possibly could not know.
31. Since, in my view, the charge under Section 376 IPC has been established, the contention of the learned counsel that the offence in the present case at the most falls within the four corners of Section 366 IPC only, is not tenable.
32. As a resume to the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and the same is hereby upheld.
33. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I do not consider it to be a fit case which may call for interference. In fact, the present occurrence could be termed as a "gang rape" in terms of Clause (g) to Section 376(2) IPC, where the minimum sentence to be imposed is ten years but which may also be for life. As the appellants have abducted a minor girl of tender age of about 12 years and thereafter she had fallen pray to the ugly act of both the appellants, this Court does not consider any satisfactory reason or any mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellants for reducing their sentence already awarded by the trial and the same is also maintained. However, in addition to the sentence awarded, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand) as compensation in favour of the prosecutrix, Raj Rani, to be paid by both the appellants in equal share. In case Raj Rani is married by now, this amount of compensation would be disbursed to her father, Ram Kishan. It is made clear that this amount of compensation is in addition to the sentence of fine already awarded. The amount of compensation ordered by me shall be paid by both the appellants within a period of three months from today. If it is not so paid, the amount shall be recovered by the person entitled to it from the appellants in accordance with law.
34. Consequently, both the appeals (i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 316-SB and 344-SB of 1989) are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.
35. Both the Revision Petitions (Nos. 1051 and 1052 of 1989) stand disposed of accordingly.
36. The appellants be taken into custody forthwith to serve the unexpired period of their sentence.