Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In regard to the incident it is deposed by the victim during the trial that ―on 26.06.2012 at about 02.00PM, I had gone to take water from near Panchwati Mandir. At that time, accused Gaurav resident of gali no. 10 in our neighbourhood was also standing there. He called me on the pretext that my sister ( name withheld to conceal the identity of the victim) had made a phone call and wanted to talk to me. For this reason, I accompanied the accused. The accused took me to his house. Nobody else was there in the house. The accused kissed on my lips and removed my clothes forcefully. Thereafter, the accused started kissing my body. The accused also removed his clothes. The accused came over my body. The accused sucked my breasts also and rubbed my vagina. Thereafter, the accused inserted his penis into my vagina. Thereafter, the accused said that he knows my mother and that I should daily visit him otherwise he would kill my mother. Thereafter, put on my clothes and went home and narrated the entire incident to my sister. She (name withheld to conceal the identity of victim) informed my mother on phone. My mother came back home and made a call at number 100. Police came to our home. The police inquired from me about the incident and recorded my statement.‖ The victim stated that her mother came at 3.30 PM. She stated that she disclosed the entire incident to her mother. But in the cross-examination she stated that she did not disclose the entire incident to her mother when she reached home and that she told her that one boy namely Gaurav had misbehaved with her, removed her clothes, she state that on hearing this, her mother called the police. The call was made by the mother from her phone about eve-teasing. If the victim had told entire facts to her then it remains unexplained as to why the call was not made with true facts. The prosecution has examined elder sister of the victim to whom she narrated the incident and who made call to her mother as PW9 and she stated that her mother made call to police in her presence and she has also not explained the reason why the call was made only of eve-teasing if rape was committed upon the victim. It is also not explained if mother had come to know about the incident upon her arrival to home at 3.30 PM then why she made call to the police at 7.45PM.

10. Moreover the version given by the victim in her statement recorded by PW6 was that on 26.02.2012 she went to tap for taking water and Gaurav, who is electrician and is aged about 21/22 years and she knows him as he used to come to her house to repair the electricity, was standing there and was watching her. He called many a times to her but she did not go to him. The he told her from a short distance that there is her didi on her mobile phone so on his asking to take phone she went to him and he by putting his hand and holding her hand took her to his home and bolted the door from inside. She bite him on his hand but he did not leave her. He was alone at his house so he using the occasion started forcing her and removed her and also his cloths and first kissed on lips and then sucked her breast and then touched her urinal part by his finger. She stated that he started inserting his penis into her urinal part. She freed herself very hardly and prated to let her go as she is feeling sever pain. Then he told her to come tomorrow and if she will not then he will pick up her sister and will got killed her mother. She put on her cloths hurriedly and ran away from there and told the entire incident to her sister upon asking and to her mother when she returned to home.

11. Ms. Tiwari submits that the prosecutrix was consistent in her stand throughout the investigation, as well as at the trial. She submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent and reliable; and the same is enough to convict the respondent.

12. Ld. Counsel drew our attention to Ex. PW-6/B - which is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 CrPC, in which she stated that on 26.06.2012, she went to take water on the tap. Gaurav - the accused, who does the work of electrician and is aged 21/22 years, whom she knows because he used to visit her house when needed to fix electric problem, was standing there watching her. He called out to her many times but she didn‟t go close to him. Then from some distance he said to her that her sister had called on his mobile phone and called her to attend the same. So the prosecutrix went with him to do the same, but Gaurav put his hand on her mouth, held on to her arm and took her to his house. He bolted it from inside. She bit him on his hand, but he still didn‟t let go of her. He was alone at home, and he seized the opportunity and started forcing himself upon her. He took off her clothes as well as his own. Thereafter he started kissing her on her lip and thereafter on her breasts. He thereafter rubbed her private part (peshaab karne ki jagah) with his fingers. Thereafter he tried inserting his private part inside her private part. With much difficulty, the prosecutrix freed herself and pleaded him to let her go as she was in immense pain. Then, he told her to come the next day as well, or else he will pick up her sister and get her mother murdered. She quickly put on her clothes and ran away from there to her home, where she started crying. On asking by her sister, she revealed all that had transpired with her, and when her mother returned, they informed her everything too. Thereafter, they reported the matter to the police and got Gaurav arrested.

(h) She came back home and narrated the incident to her sister.

(i) Her sister called their mother, who came back home and on being informed by the daughters about the incident, made a call on 100 number.

33. The statements are consistent, duly corroborated by: (a) the statements of PW-5 and PW-9; (b) the medical examination of the prosecutrix Ex. PW- 8/BB., and; (c) the FSL report Ex.PW-17/A, and inspire the confidence of this Court.

34. We are appalled that in the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court, the Ld. ASJ has completely ignored and effaced the MLC (Ex. PW 8/B), even though the same has been exhibited on record. In the MLC, the examining doctor found that the breast of the prosecutrix was swollen and teeth marks were also present on the chest. There was a cut mark around 1 cm on the left cheek bone. The hymen was found to be torn admitting tip of finger. This medical report of the prosecutrix fully corroborates her statement that the accused had sucked her breasts. The fact that the hymen was found torn also corroborates the statement of the victim that she was raped by the accused. Pertinently, she had disclosed that the accused had penetrated her in her statement u/s 161 Cr PC which was recorded on the date of the incident. Even in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr PC, the prosecutrix had disclosed that the accused had inserted his penis into her vagina. She had also disclosed that she had requested the accused to let her go, as she was experiencing a lot of pain. In her testimony recorded before the court, she had categorically stated that the accused had inserted his penis into her vagina. The statement of the prosecutrix also stood corroborated by the statements of her mother Pinki PW-5 and the statement of her sister Neetu PW-9, to which we have already made reference.