S.D.ANAND,J - (1.) APPELLANTS Rajbir and Mst. Sunita were convicted by the learned Trial Judge for an offence under Sections 376 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code respectively by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar on 15.4.2005. Appellant Rajbir was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, he was to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months. A similar punishment was awarded to appellant Sunita. The order on point of sentence is dated 19.4.2005.
(2.) ON 7.5.2003, at about 10.00 A.M., appellant Sunita had taken the prosecutrix along on the pretext of collecting fire wood. They went over to the fields of Sube Singh son of Mana of village Khanpur Khurd where appellant Rajbir was available. Appellant Sunita caught hold of prosecutrix; while appellant Rajbir forcibly administered an intoxicant into her mouth. On account thereof, the prosecutrix became unconscious. On re-gaining consciousness, she was not in a position to find out what exactly had happened to her. It was only at a subsequent point of time i.e. on 11.5.2003 that she noticed that her person had been violated. Formal FIR Exhibit P1/A under Sections 376/511 /120-B of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered on the basis of an application given by her parents to the police. The learned Trial Judge convicted the appellants for the above mentioned offence by upholding the validity of the prosecution plea in toto. The learned Trial Judge held that no importance could be attached to the delay in reporting the offence to the police in view of the fact that the matter involved the honour of the family of the prosecutrix, particularly when she was an unmarried minor girl. The learned Trial Judge further held that the prosecution plea could not be discarded just on account of the absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. The learned Trial Judge also did not attach any importance whatsoever to the FSL report which ruled out the violation of her person. It was observed that the alleged violation stood proved as semen had been found on the undergarments of appellant Rajbir. Insofar as appellant Sunita is concerned, the learned Trial Judge upheld her liability by observing that she had rendered herself accountable to law by having brought the prosecutrix out of her house to the fields of Sube Singh and by further having helped the co-appellant to administer an intoxicant to the prosecutrix. The further observation, in the context, is that the conduct of appellant Sunita in not objecting to the violation of the person of prosecutrix by her co-appellant Rajbir is also indicative of connivance on her part.
(3.) A conjunctive perusal of the testimony of PW10 Dr. Kumud Sharma (who had medicolegally examined the prosecutrix) and FSL report Exhibit P10 would rule out the commission of offence of rape. The FSL report is to the effect that "Human semen was detected on exhibit-4c (Kachha). However, semen could not be detected on rest of the exhibits mentioned above.";