Punjab-Haryana High Court
Siri Bhagwan S/O Sube Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008
Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992
Date of Decision : September 29, 2008
Siri Bhagwan S/o Sube Singh, ...Appellant
R/o Wazirpur, Police Station Beri.
Versus
The State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. A.K.Jindal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.2.1992, and the order of sentence dated 13.2.1992, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Siri Bhagwan, for the offence, punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 8.3.1991, at about 9.00 AM, the prosecutrix ( her name is not being mentioned in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court and she is being referred to as prosecutrix ) who was a student of 7th Class, aged less than 16 years, and a resident of Wazirpur, went to her father, who was working at a brick- kiln, in the said village After giving him the food, she was coming back, to her house, when, on the way, by the side of the field of Lalji, Siri Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 2 Bhagwan, accused, accosted her. He was having a coarse cloth (khes), with him. He put that cloth, on the mouth of the prosecutrix, lifted her, in his arms, took her to a field of mustard crop, and committed rape, with her. The prosecutrix, continued crying. Her mother Khazani, was cutting grass at a distance of 3 killas, from that place. Hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, she came to that place, and saw Siri Bhagwan, accused, running out of the field, towards the village. The prosecutrix, was brought by her mother, to her house. Thereafter, she was sent to the School. In the evening, Ram Singh, father of the prosecutrix, came home, and he was told about the occurrence. On the next day, Ram Singh, went to Rohtak, to consult his son Chand Singh. Efforts were made, in the village, for getting the matter compromised. When the matter was not compromised, in the village, the prosecutrix came to Police Station Beri. On the basis of her statement, FIR was registered. Inder Singh, SI/SHO, took the prosecutrix, to Civil Hospital, and got her medico-legally examined. The Doctor after medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix, handed over to the Investigating Officer, the sealed parcels, containing clothes of the prosecutrix, samples of swab, pubic hair etc. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, recorded the statements of Ram Singh, father of the prosecutrix, and Des Raj, HC. The Investigating Officer, then went to the place of occurrence, and inspected the same. He prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. The statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, was also recorded. On 24.3.1991, Siri Bhagwan, accused, was arrested, and was got medico-legally examined. The remaining investigation was conducted by Gian Singh, SI. He obtained the certificate of age of the prosecutrix, from her School. After the Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 3 completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.
3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 376 of the IPC, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Shashi Kanta (PW-1), who medico-legally examined the prosecutrix, Dr. R.P.S.Jakhar, (PW-2), who medico-legally examined the accused, Dayapal, Constable (PW-3), Krishan Kumar, MHC (PW-4), Ranbir Singh, Constable (PW-5), the formal witnesses, the prosecutrix (PW-6), who deposed with regard to the occurrence, in detail, Khazani (PW-7), mother of the prosecutrix, who corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix, Inder Singh, SI (PW-8), who partly investigated the case, Hari Om Patwari (PW-9), who prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence, Gian Singh, SI (PW-10), who partly investigated the case, and Smt. Rajni Bala (PW-11), who proved the certificate of age of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that he was detained by the police 3 or 4 days prior to showing of his arrest. He further stated that the father of the prosecutrix, had intentionally given her lesser age, while getting her admitted in the School. He further stated that, in fact, at the time of the Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 4 alleged occurrence, she was above the age of 16 years. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated, at the instance of the prosecutrix, and her mother namely Khazani, who connived with the police. He further stated that the prosecutrix, and her mother were cutting grass from his fields, which adjoined the field of Lalji. At that time he gave slaps to the prosecutrix, as well as her mother. He further stated that, on account of that reason, false allegation of rape, was levelled by the prosecutrix, against him. He, however, examined Jai Kishan, Sarpanch (DW-1), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.
6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.
7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. It is settled principle of Criminal jurisprudence, that the prosecution, is required to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court is not required to act on mere suspicion, conjectures or surmises or suspicious circumstances, to bring home the guilt to the accused. Reasonable doubt should not be stretched too far, to suspect everything so as to defeat the ends of justice. In Gurbachan Singh vs. Sat Pal AIR 1990 Supreme Court 209, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that reasonable doubt, is simply that degree of doubt, which could permit a reasonable and just man to come to a Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 5 conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt, must not nurture fanciful doubts, and lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile, on the plea, that it is better to let hundred guilty escape, than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1998, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see, that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that guilty man does not escape. One is as important, as the other. Both are public duties, which the Judge has to perform.
10. Before touching the merits of the case, in the light of the evidence, on record, in the first instance, it must be stated, as to what approach, the Court should adopt, while evaluating the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, in sex related offence. Is it essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated in material particulars, before the Court bases a conviction on her testimony? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save the rarest of rare, the Court should look for corroboration before acting on the evidence of the prosecutrix? Let us see, if the Evidence Act, provides the clue to this riddle. Under the Evidence Act, evidence means and includes all statements, which the Court permits or requires to be made before it, by the witnesses, in relation to the matters of fact, under inquiry. Under Section 59 of the Evidence Act, all facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 118 then Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 6 illustrates, as to who may give oral evidence. According to that Section, all persons are competent to testify, unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions, put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Even, in the case of an accomplice, Section 133 provides that he/she shall be a competent witness, against an accused person, and the conviction is not illegal, merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, illustration (b) to Section 114, which lays down a rule of practice, says that the Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated, in material particulars. Thus, under Section 133, which lays down a rule of law, an accomplice is a competent witness, and the conviction based solely on his uncorroborated evidence, is not illegal, although in view of Section 114 illustration (b), the Courts do not, as a matter of practice, do so, and look for corroboration, in material particulars. This is the conjoint effect of Sections 133 and 114 illustration
(b).
10-A. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain with Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain & Anr. 1990(2) Chandigarh, Law Reporter 228 (SC), it was held as under:-
"A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 7 in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as it attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must atach in the evaluation of her evidence, as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person, who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act, similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which required it to look for corroboration. If for the same reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 8 shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation, in accepting her evidence. We have, therefore, no doubt, in our minds, that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness. For the above reasons we think that exception has rightly been taken to the approach of the High Court as is reflected in the following passage:-
"It is only, in the rarest of rare cases if the Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is so trustworthy truthful and reliable that other corroboration may not be necessary."
With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If we may say so, it is just the reverse. Ordinarily, the evidence of prosecutrix, must carry the same weight as is attached to an injured person, who is a victim of violence, unless there are special circumstances which call for greater caution, in which case it would be safe to act on her testimony, if there is Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 9 independent evidence lending assurance to her accusation.
We think it proper, having regard to the increase in the number of sex-violation cases in the recent past, particularly cases of molestation and rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists, that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars, except in the rarest of rare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe would not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the Western and European countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, evident that respect for womanhood, in our country is on active and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing. Indian woman is now required to suffer indignities in different forms.
From lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 10 to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be promoted and protected only if we deal strictly with those, who violate the social norms. The standard of proof to be required by the Court in such cases, must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that ordinarily woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity.
It is time to recall the observation of this Court made not so far back in Bhaiwaca Bhognibhai Hirjinbhai:-
In the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is a doing insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?
To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 11 dominated society. We must analyse the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross- examination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach, made in the Western world which has its own social milieu , its own permissive values, and its own code of life.
Corroboration may, be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the Western World. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turn-Key basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian Society and its profile. The identities of the two Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 12 worlds are different. The solution of problems therefore, cannot be identical.
Further this Court said;
Without the fear of making two wide a statement or of over-stating the case it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India false allegations of sexual assault.... The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by the and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or to and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because (1). A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-
permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 13 ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) she would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society whereby and Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 14 large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to the promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by investigating agency, to face the Court to face the cross-examination, by Counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.
11. Keeping in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, it is to be seen, as to whether, the prosecution was successful in proving its case, against the accused. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-6. It was stated by her that on 8.3.1991, she went to the Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 15 brick-kiln, where her father was working, to give him meals. After giving him meals, at about 9.00 AM, when she was returning to her house, and reached by the side of the field of Lalji, having mustard crop, Siri Bhagwan, accused, who was hiding himself, in that field, came at her back, and took her in his arms. It was further stated by her, that she was taken inside the field, and laid on the ground. It was further stated by her that thereafter, he put a coarse sheet of cloth (khes), on her mouth, forcibly broke the strings of her salwar, and underwear (katcha). It was further stated by her that at that time, she was 13/14 years of age. It was further stated by her, that thereafter the accused committed rape with her, and she continued raising cries, and making noise. Her statement is further to the effect that her mother, who was cutting grass, at a distance of 3 killas, from that place, on hearing her cries, came there, and saw towards the accused, who fled towards the village. It was further stated by her that thereafter her mother, took her to the house. On the same day, she was sent to the School, where she was studying. It was further stated by her, that when in the evening her father came to the house, he was narrated the entire occurrence. The statement of the prosecutrix, as PW-
6, was duly corroborated by her mother (PW-7). Dr. Shashi Kanta, (PW-1), medico-legally examined her. She stated that hymen showed old tears. Pubic hairs were not matted. A swab from posterior fornix of vagina taken, and sent for analysis. She also sent the clothes of the prosecutrix, to the Chemical Examiner. The preliminary opinion given by Doctor was to the effect that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. She, however, withheld the final opinion, regarding the recent sexual intercourse, till the receipt of the report of Chemical Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 16 Examiner. After, seeing the report of the Chemical Examiner, she stated that according to her sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, had not been performed, within 72 hours of her examination. The prosecutrix, in this case, was medico-legally examined, at about 8.40 PM, on 11.3.1991. The opinion of the Doctor, in this respect, was based on the fact that there was no semen, on her clothes, and the swabs, found by the Forensic Science Laboratory. It may be stated here, that the occurrence, took place on 8.3.1991, at about 9.00 AM, whereas, the prosecutrix was medico- legally examined on 11.3.1991, at 8.40 PM. The prosecutrix, in clear-cut terms, stated that she changed the clothes. She also stated that the clothes, which she was wearing, at the time of the occurrence, were washed by her. Since, the prosecutrix, took bath on 8.3.1991, 9.3.1991, 10.3.1991 and 11.3.1991, the question of presence of semen, in her vaginal swabs, did not at all arise. Even the question of presence of semen, on her clothes, in this view of the matter, did not at all arise. Under these circumstances, the statement of the Doctor, on the aforesaid point, in the face of the direct evidence of the prosecutrix, and her mother, was hardly of any consequence. It may be stated here, that primacy is required to be given to the direct evidence of the prosecutrix, over the medical evidence. The medical examination of the prosecutrix, after 4 days of the commission of rape, with her, could not be of any help, but, on the other hand, her sworn testimony, which has been found to be cogent, convincing, and trustworthy, in so far as the commission of rape with her, by the accused, was concerned, is required to be given weightage. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the medical evidence, and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 17 belied the commission of rape, with the prosecutrix, by the accused. The trial Court was right in arriving at the conclusion, that rape was committed with the prosecutrix, on the basis of the cogent and convincing ocular evidence. There was no reason, on the part of the prosecutrix, to depose falsely, against the accused. Even if, the defence set up by the accused, is assumed to be correct, that when the prosecutrix, and her mother, were cutting grass, in his field, on 7.3.1991, he slapped them, that did not mean that the prosecutrix, a minor girl, will go to the extent of making false allegations, against him (accused), that he committed rape with her. She knew that she was an unmarried minor girl, and if the allegations levelled by her, against the accused, were proved to be false, she would be looked down upon, in the society, and in the eyes of her relations. She also very well knew that, in case, such allegations were found to be false, her chances of marriage shall certainly become bleak. She also knew that she and her family would be ostracized and castigated in the society, that she had made false allegations. Even the mother of the prosecutrix, very well knew that, in case, she prompted the prosecutrix to make false allegations of rape, against the accused, her entire family will be looked down upon. Even if, the defence of the accused, is assumed to be correct, as stated above, no minor unmarried girl shall put her honour at stake by levelling false allegations, against him, that he committed rape with her. After reappraisal of the evidence, this Court also comes to the conclusion, that the trial Court was right in forming the opinion that the prosecution was successful in proving its case, beyond a reasonable doubt. The conclusion arrived at, by the trial Court, finding the accused guilty of the commission of offence, punishable under Section 376 IPC, Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 18 being correct, is affirmed.
12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that it was completely an unnatural conduct of the mother of the prosecutrix, to take the prosecutrix to the house, and send her to the School, on the same day. He further submitted that had such an incident taken place, the prosecutrx would not have been sent to the School, on the same day, especially when she must be under shock and agony. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The father of the prosecutrix was working in the brick kiln, at some distance from the place of incident. As soon as, the mother of the prosecutrix, saw the accused, committing the act of rape with the prosecutrix, and on seeing her, he ran away, there was no alternative with her, than to bring her, to her house. By that time, the incident was a secret affair, between the mother, and the daughter. The mother of the prosecutrix, did not make the same to be public, knowing that the honour of her daughter was at stake. Had she been not sent to the School immediately, after the incident, a number of persons would have come to her house, to enquire about, as to the circumstances, under which, she was not sent to the School. In that event, it would have been difficult for the members of the family, to answer the unwarranted queries. It was, under these circumstances, so as to avoid unwarranted queries, that the mother of the prosecutrix, took a wise decision, to send her to the School, on that very day. As soon as, the father of the prosecutrix, came to the house, in the evening, he was narrated the entire story. Thereafter, there were talks, with regard to the compromise, and, ultimately, when the same did not mature, the FIR was lodged. The mere fact that the Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 19 prosecutrix was sent to the School, on the day of occurrence, did not, in any way, cast any reflection on the evidence of her mother. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the age of the prosecutrix, on the date of the alleged occurrence, was more than 16 years, and she was a consenting party. He invited my pointed attention to the statement of Dr. Shashi Kanta (PW-1), who stated that the age of the girl was 14 years, as was mentioned by her, as per the police report. She further stated that she did not advise the police to get subjected the prosecutrix to osification test. Smt. Rajni Bala, Math Mistress, Govt. Girls High School, Bahuakbarpur (PW-11), brought the certificate Ex.PK, prepared by her, from the record maintained by the School. She stated that the certificate, Ex.PK, was true copy of the entry made at Sr.No.4386 dated 24.4.1989. She also brought the admission register, and the application moved by the guardian of the student, at the time of her admission. According to Ex.PK, the prosecturx was born on 20.5.1976. The occurrence took place, in this case, on 8.3.1991. It means that she was below 16 years of age, at the time of occurrence. Ex.PK, certificate was duly proved by Smt. Rajni Bala, (PW-11). There is no other evidence, to rebut the certificate, Ex.PK, proved by Smt. Rajni Bala, (PW-11). There was no reason for her to depose falsely. As such, from the evidence, it was proved that the prosecutrix, was below 16 years of age, at the time of occurrence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 20
14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that according to the evidence of Dr. Shashi Kanta Jakhar, (PW-1), the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. He further submitted that the prosecutrix was a girl of loose character, and, as such, no reliance on her evidence, could be placed. It may be stated here, that, even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that she was described as a girl habitual to sexual intercourse, by the Doctor, aforesaid, that did not give a licence to the accused, to invade her privacy. Even a lady of loose virtue, cannot be subjected to rape, by an accused, on the ground, that she was of loose character. The statement of the Doctor, in this regard, did not absolve the accused of his criminal liability. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that Chand Singh, brother of the prosecutrix, to whom her father went, was not examined. He further submitted that he was a material witness. He further submitted that the prosecution withheld the best evidence, in its possession. He further submitted that non-examination of Chand Singh, brother of the prosecutrix, gave rise to an adverse inference, that had he been examined, he would not have supported the case of the prosecution. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Chand Singh, could not be said to be a material witness. The prosecutrix, and her mother could be said to be the material witnesses. Both of them, were examined by the prosecution. It was not necessary for the Public Prosecutor for the State, to examine each and every witness, whose name is cited in the list of witnesses, to prove a Crl. Appeal No.79-SB of 1992 21 particular fact. It is also not necessary for the Public Prosecutor for the State, to multiply the number of witnesses. In this view of the matter, non-examination of Chand Singh, brother of the prosecutrix, when the other evidence was cogent, convincing, and reliable, did not at all affect the prosecution case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.
18. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 10.2.1992, and the order of sentence dated 13.2.1992, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, then his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, and compliance report be sent within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy thereof.
September 29, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE