CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The appellants were tried and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 Indian PenalT Code by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Sonepat and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four, years. Feeling aggrieved against the same, they have come up in appeal. Rameshwar, father of Miss Munish prosecutrix bas also filed a revision petition against the said order of the trial Court for enhancement of the sentence. Both, the appeal and the revision petition shall be disposed of

(2.) In brief the facts of the prosecution case are that on February 20, 1985, Miss Munish along with her younger sister Babita about five years old bad gone to her fields in the area of village Shreshah for bringing Barseem fodder. At about 3.00 p.m. Charan Singh and Naresh Kumar accused arrived there and forcibly lifted her after gagging her mount and took, her to the nearby wheat fields where her hands were secured by Cham Singh accused while Naresh Kumar subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. Thereafter Naresh Kumar accused secured her hands and gagged her mouth while Charan Singh accused committed sexual intercourse. The wailing of Babita and cries of the prosecutrix attracted their uncles Ram Dhari (PW-4 and Ram Phal witnesses. Both the accused managed to escape at the sight of the witnesses. The prosecuting narrated the incident to both these witnesses. Thereafter she was brought to her house where she narrated the occurrence to her mother Jagmati PW-2). But as Rameshwar (PW-3) father of the prosecutrix was away to Delhi on that day, the prosecutrix and her mother did not take any action in the matter. Rameshwar (PW-3) returned to the village next morning when the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to him. Then a panchayat was convened and ultimately, the prosecutrix along with her father and other witnesses went to Police Post Piao Maniari where ASI Ram Phal recorded statement Exhibit PA of the prosecutrix which concluded at 8.00 p.m. on February 21, 1985 and on its basis a formal FIR Exhibit Pair was got recorded at Police Station Rai at 3.00 p.m. through ASI Ratti Ram (PW-8). ASI Ram Phal visited the spot on the next morning. He recorded the statement of Jagmati (PW-2) mother of the prosecutrix and found both the accused absconding from their houses and the village. He also prepared visual site place Exhibit PG of the site besides recording the statements of Ram Dhari. (PW-4). Ram Phal and other witnesses. The prosecutrix was got medico legally examined from Dr, Mrs Suman Mathur (PW-7) at 11.10 a.m. on February 22, 1985. She however, found no injury on her private parts or the body. She found that vagina admitted two fingers easily and hymen timed, She took two swabs from the secretions of the vagina, and handed over the same to the police in a sealed phial. She also advised radiological examination of the prosecutrix for determination of her bone age Dr. S.K. Gosaien Radiologist (PW-5) found the bone age of the prosecutrix to be in between 16 to 17 years on the basis of x-ray ski grams Exhibits P 3 to P 6 taken by him on February 25. 1985. ASI Ram Phal arrested C4aran Singh, accused on March 2.3.1985 while Naresh. Kumar accused was arrested next day. Both the accused were got medico legally examined from Dr. Mukesh Kumar (PW-6) who found them to be capable of committing sexual intercourse. Sealed phial containing swabs of the cervix of the vagina of the prosecutrix and the clothes worn by her at the time of the occurrence were sent to the Chemical Examiner who vide his report Exhibit PK deleted human semen on all these articles.

(3.) The trial Court believing the version of the prosecutrix along with corroborative evidence of her mother and father besides the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above. The version of simple denial and false implication of both the accused did not find favour with the trial Court. The trial Court, however, disbelieved the presence of Ram Dhari (PW-4) at the time of the occurrence. Miss Babita and Ram Phal eye-witnesses were, however, not examined by the prosecution.