L.S.MEHTA, J. - (1.) PROSECUTRIX is Mst. Inderjeet Kaur (P.W. 4). She lived at Chak No. 21 BB, Padampur. Her step -mother is Mst. Sarjeet Kaur (P.W. 3). Her father is Jagat Singh (P.W. 2), who worked as a driver, employed by the Rajasthan Roadways, Ganganagar. It is alleged that Mst. Inderjeet Kaur was on visiting terms with accused Jarnail Singh. They also indulged at times in talks with each other in Jarnail Singh's fields. On August 26, 1968, at about 11 a.m. Inderjeet Kaur went to Jarnail Singh's field with a basket for fetching grass. She took with her a 'Khurpi' (scythe). When she was mowing grass. Jarnail Singh came to her and felled her down on the ground. Her 'Salwar' was taken out of one leg and her 'Kachha' (underwear) was also removed. She was then forcibly ravished for a minute or two. Her cry attracted two way -farers, namely, Sukh Ram (P.W. 5) and Chandan Singh (P.W. 7). On a challenge, thrown by the two witnesses Jarnail Singh left the victim and went away. The two persons escorted her to her house. Having been apprised of the happening, Sarjeet Kaur (P.W. 3) sent Mahendra Singh (P.W. 6) to Gangangar to convey information relating to the incident to her husband Jagat Singh. Jagat Singh went to his house and then proceeded to the police station, Padampur. The Sub -Inspector of police first asked Jagat Singh to produce eye -witnesses. He then took two eye -witnesses. Sukh Ram and Chandan Singh to him. Thereafter the Station House Officer recorded first information report (Ex. P.2) on August 28, 1968, at 9 p.m. Inderjeet Kaur was examined, on August 28, 1968, by Dr. Har Govind, (P.W. 9). No injury was found on her person, nor on her private pn. He, however, noticed tear on her hymen, which showed that there had been sexual intercourse with her. The Doctor did not record a finding that such an intercourse had been against her will. Accused Jarnail Singh was also medically examined by Dr. Shreenath (P.W. 1). He did not discern any mark of injury anywhere on his body. The Doctor further opined that he was capable of performing sexual act. After the investigation was concluded, the police presented a challan against accused Jarnail Singh in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur. The said Magistrate conducted preliminary inquiry and committed the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to take trial under Section 376, I.P.C. The case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of the place. The accused denied to have committed the alleged crime. In support of its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. In his Statement, recorded under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code the accused took the plea that he committed no crime and that he was a married person and was leading a family life. The prosecution allegations, according to him, are false. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, by his judgement, dated May 21, 1970, found Jarnail Singh guilty under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years, Jarnail Singh's appeal was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, on August 19, 1971.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above verdict, Jarnail Singh has taken the present revision application. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two witnesses, Sukh Ram (P.W. 5) and Chandan Singh (P.W. 7), were not present on the spit at the time of the occurrence. They are got up witnesses and, therefore, their evidence should not have been trusted by the court below. The statement of Mst. Inderjeet Kaur (P.W. 4), counsel has persuasively submitted, is also unworthy of credence. If at all any sexual intercourse, counsel adds, was performed on the date of the occurrence, it positively took place with her consent. The prosecutrix, according to learned counsel, was above 16 years of age. Learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the judgement of the court below.
(3.) I may first take up the evidence of eye -witness Sukh Ram (P.W. 5) He says that on the date of the incident he was returning from Padampur with some flour. On his way he heard an outcry of Mst. Inderjeet Kaur. He saw Jarnail Singh performing sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. When he challenged the accused, he threatened him with serious consequences and asked him to quit. In the meantime Chandan Singh also arrived there. Thereafter both of them threw challenge to Jarnail Singh and he left the place. He and Chandan Singh escorted the girl to her house. Sukh Ram (P.W. 5) appears to me to be a chance witness. In his statement, recorded under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code (Ex. D. 3 at portion marked A to B), he had deposed that he had been going from 21 BB. to Padampur, but before the trial court he has said that he was coming from Padampur. When the witness was confronted with this discrepancy, he said that he had not deposed previously that he had been going to Padampur. In the cross -examination the witness has said that he did not disclose the event either to the village Lumbardar or the Panch. This conduct of his does not accord with human probability. The prosecutrix has deposed in her statement that she went to Jarnail Sing's field to fetch grass with a basket. As against this Sukh Ram states that he lifted the grass wrapped with a bed -sheet and took it to the prosecutrix's house. The witness does not know the colour of the bed -sheet. There is another striking feature in his statement. He says that even after his challenge the accused continued performing sexual intercourse. Later on the witness says that the prosecutrix did not tell him anything. Had the girl been ravished, her first natural reaction would have been to raise clamour and narrate the atrocity to the witnesses the moment she had had an opportunity of doing so. In his police statement Ex. D. 2 (at portion marked A to B) he had stated that the girl had left for her village and that he followed her. But before the trial court he has deposed that he and the other witness escorted the girl and gave an account of the incident to her mother. The witness then says that the prosecutrix's mother did not tell anything. This reflects another unnatural conduct. The witness was examined by the police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, on August 29, 1968, i.e., on the 4th day of the occurrence. Unjustified, unexplained and long delay in recording the statement of a material witness renders the evidence of such witness unreliable (vide Balakrushna v. State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 804. It is in the evidence of Jagat Singh, (P.W. 9), father of the prosecutix, that he went to the police station and took eye -witnesses with him. The eye -witnesses were interrogated by the police and then the first information report was recorded. This also gives an impression that the evidence of this witness is a manufactured one.;