Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baba Kalu vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000
Date of Decision:August 26,2010
Baba Kalu ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr. K.L.Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
**
Sabina, J.
Appellant-Baba Kalu was convicted for an offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 15.7.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar. Vide order of even date the sentence awarded to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:-
Under Section Rigorous Fine RI indefault of
imprsionment payment of fine
376 IPC Ten years Rs.5000/- One year
506 IPC One year Rs.200/- Three months
Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence,
the present appeal.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:-
"2. Brief facts of the case are that Harjinder Kaur, prosecutrix, Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000 2 PW3, is a resident of village Vallah. She has two brothers and one sister. She used to remain ill. She went to the accused belonging to he village. The accused practices medicine and witch craft. He has also established a worship place in his house. On seeing the prosecutrix, he stated that she was under the influence of some evil spirit and that if she started coming to him, she would be cured. Thereafter, the prosecutrix started going to the accused daily for her treatment. Manjit Kaur wife of the accused had undergone four/five operations and continued to be ill. The prosecutrix started cooking food in the house of the accused. About 10 or 11 days before 15.6.1998, the prosecutrix was sleeping in the compound of the house of the accused, who dragged her inside a room, put a piece of cloth in her mouth, put off her salwar and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The prosecutrix tried to get rid of the accused but without any result. After committing rape, the accused threatened the prosecutrix that if she disclosed the incident to anybody, he would kill her father and brother through witch craft. The prosecutrix kept silent for fear of that threat and the accused continued raping her. When the accused started harassing the prosecutrix more, she disclosed the entire episode to her mother."
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
The present case relates to an offence under Section 376 IPC. As per prosecutrix PW3, appellant belonged to their village and was practicing Witch Craft. The mother of the prosecutrix had taken her to the Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000 3 appellant for treatment. Initially, the prosecutrix was cured but later on, she got sick. The prosecutrix used to go to the house of the appellant daily for treatment. The wife of the appellant remained ill and so the prosecutrix started cooking meals in the house of the appellant. On the day of occurrence, prosecutrix was sleeping in the compound of the house of the appellant. The appellant took the prosecutrix forcibly in his room and committed rape on her person. Prosecutrix was threatened by the appellant that he would kill her parents and her brother with the help of his witch craft. Prosecutrix remained mum out of fear and the appellant continued committing rape on her person. Prosecutrix narrated the story to her mother as she had got pregnant. The appellant made the prosecutrix to undergo an abortion.
The mother of the prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as PW4 and deposed that she had taken her daughter to the appellant, who belonged to their village, for treatment. The wife of the appellant was not feeling well and had been operated upon on four occasions. The appellant had asked her daughter to cook meals for him. Her daughter told her that the appellant had been committing rape on her person and she had become pregnant and the child was got aborted by the appellant.
PW1 Dr. Manjit Singh, who had medico-legally examined the prosecutrix, after going through the report of the Chemical Examiner, opined that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse.
It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others AIR 1996, Supreme Court 1393 as under:-
"Where the prosecutrix was rape, but the investigating agency failed to trace the car or its driver, the failure of Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000 4 the investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix, The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating Officer could not affect the credibility of the Statement of the prosecutrix.'' "In sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Even if there is some delay in lodging FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter."
"The testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict and accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000 5 complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence on an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000 6 treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formual and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable."
The testimony of the prosecutrix being natural inspire confidence. Prosecutrix had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. The prosecutrix has withstood the test of cross-examination. The present case relates to unfortunate event wherein the prosecutrix, who was a young girl, has been raped by the appellant who was a married man and was aged about 42 years. The appellant who was allegedly practicing Witch Craft had taken advantage of the said fact and has committed rape on the person of the prosecutrix who had been coming to his house for treatment. From the prosecution evidence, it transpires that the wife of the appellant was not feeling well and,therefore, the prosecutrix started cooking meals in the house of the appellant and the appellant took advantage of the said fact. The appellant is guilty of commission of serious offence. Of late crime against woman in general and rape in particular is on the rise. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. A rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes a serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a Criminal Appeal No.712-SB of 2000 7 physical assault, it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless woman. The Courts are,therefore, required to deal with cases of rape with utmost sensitivity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars.
In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for an offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
( Sabina) Judge August 26, 2010 arya