Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Version of the prosecutrix and constable Anandram finds support from the deposition of Hukumsingh P.W. 3 and he has not been cross-examined on the aspect that the prosecutrix was not brought to the police station. No cross-examination has been made of the witness to the effect that she was not kept with Kachra Bai in the night. Kachra Bai has been examined as P.W. 1. She deposed that Hukumsingh, constable Meghnath and Gannu constable came to her tea shop (Hotel) and told that station officer was calling her to the station. She refused to go. Thereafter constable Hukumsingh came and told her that one woman has to be kept with her for the night. She did not go to the police station, however, the prosecutrix was brought to her place at about 1 a.m. in the night, who was resident of Seoni. She stated that in the night after about half an hour another constable came asked her to open the door and told that Circle Inspector was coming to the house. Later on some person came again and told that Circle Inspector wants to record statement of the girl as such she should be sent immediately. She opened the door. Constable took that girl who was the prosecutrix with himself. That girl came back in the morning at about 4-5 a.m. and asked her to open the door, but, she refused to give shelter to her again. The witness denied the presence of Circle Inspector which she had stated to the police in the statement Ex. P-1, A to A portion, hence, she was declared hostile and was cross-examined. However, deposition of this witness Kachra Bai substantially corroborates the version of the prosecutrix and the two constables; constable Anandram (P.W. 2) and head constable Hukumsingh (P.W. 3). However, she has deposed in Para 8 that she was not knowing Balram by name, as such she could not say that who had come to take the girl from her house. As girl was not given shelter after commission of offence of rape, by Balram Kusre, by Kachra Bai, she had gone to the house of Kriparam P.W. 4. He has deposed that when she came to his house at 5 a.m. his wife had opened the door. The witness P.W. 4 has not been cross-examined on behalf of the accused appellant. Thus, it is established that on refusal by Kachra Bai she had gone to the house of Kriparam and took shelter in his house.

12. Prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Smt. Shashi Kladiyas on 16-4-86 after about 15 days of the incident as such no definite opinion could be given about the rape. Doctor has opined that it was not possible to opine about sexual intercourse after 10-12 days of the same because after lapse of 10-12 days it was not possible to find any sign. Her hymen was found ruptured because she was a married lady.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has mainly placed reliance upon the report of medical examination of the accused Balram Kusre furnished by Dr. M.L. Nayak examined as P.W. 8. As per the report furnished by Dr. M.L. Nayak as contained in Ex. P-4 the accused was examined after about one month, 24 days of the incident by Dr. M.L. Nayak. As per his report Ex. P-4, as to the male part it was found small in size and was not erected. Testis were normal in size and the vasectomy was done on both side, testicuiar reflex was sluggish on left side and absent on the right side. Doctor opined that the accused is impotent and could not performed the sexual intercourse as his penis was not erected on stimulation. However, Doctor opined that it was not possible to give any opinion whether he could commit intercourse on 2/3rd April, 86. Thus, Doctor's report Ex. P-4 is contradictory itself. On one hand Doctor has opined that it was not possible to give any opinion about accused's capacity to perform intercourse on 2/3rd April, 86 and on the other hand the Doctor has opined that the accused was impotent. If the accused was really impotent, the accused could not perform intercourse on 2/3rd April, 86, but, no such certificate has been given by the Doctor. He could only say that the private part of the accused was not erected on stimulation. In what manner stimulation was given has not been mentioned by the Doctor in the report. The accused was physically healthy. Doctor has not mentioned that any massage was given to the private part of the accused. No other tests were conducted by the Doctor so as to opine that the accused was impotent. The said Doctor has been examined as P.W. 8. He has qualified his statement in Paragraph 3 of his deposition that he could opine only with respect to date on which he examined the accused. He found him impotent on that day. He has not deposed as to the date of incident. Doctor has not deposed before the Court that any prostrate massage or any stimulation was given and in what manner stimulation was given. He has clearly deposed in Para 3 that he could not state whether accused could perform sexual intercourse on 2/3rd April, 86, i.e., intervening night of the incident as sign of such sexual intercourse were not present. Obviously, after one month and 23 days such sign if any would not be found, but, Doctor has not opined that the accused was not capable of performing sexual intercourse on 2/3rd April, 86 when the incident took place and moreover Doctor appears to have been won over by Circle Inspector. Doctor's deposition is vague and is of non-committal in nature. A letter was written to this witness Ex. P-5. By Ex. P-5 he was required to explain whether the impotency was such that accused could not perform intercourse on 2/3rd April, 86 and whether Doctor could say for how much period the accused was suffering from impotency. This query was made on 19-8-86 from the said Doctor Nayak. He mentioned on the back of the said letter in the portion Ex. P-5A that it was not possible to give an opinion whether accused was impotent on 2-4-86 and it was not possible to give an opinion that from how much period accused was impotent. The Ex. P-5A reply was sent on 20-6-86 by the Doctor and he was not cross-examined by the accused. No question was put in his cross-examination that the accused was not capable of performing sexual intercourse on 2-4-86 and 3-4-86. The trial Court has rejected the report of the Doctor. The medical opinion is only an opinion and it is for the Court to accept it and it has been held so in 1982 SCC (Cr.) page 431. Nature of the expert opinion has been considered by Supreme Court in another case Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Anr., (1992) 3 SCC 204 Supreme Court has observed as under :--