- (1.) The appellant Pala Ram has been convicted for the offence under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 in default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Against this conviction and sentence made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raishingnagar by his judgment dated 29/06/1991 he has preferred this appeal.
(2.) In village Satjhanda one Bhgirath Bishnoi (father of the appellant) had some agricultural land and this was given to Banwari Lal, husband of the prosecutrix Mst. Savitri for the purpose of cultivation on 1/4 th share. Turns were allotted for irrigating the field and it so happened that on 28/10/1987 it was the turn of Banwari to irrigate the field and Banwari Lal along with his two brothers; Ram Narain and Ram Swaroop left for the field at about 9.00 p.m. Their turn to irrigate was uptil 7.00 a.m. on the next day. Mst. Savitri was lone in the house except for her one year old child. The family of Banwari Lal was staying in the house of Bhagirath Bishnoi, who himself lived in another house which is close by. At about 3 or 4 in the early morning the appellant entered the house of Banwari Lal where Mst. Savitri was sleeping in the courtyard. He raised the Ghagra of Mst. Savitri then removed her underwear and himself undressed and committed rape upon her. She shouted but no one came there. Then the accused went out of the house and at that time Ram Narain came from the field to fetch some tea. He saw the appellant coming out of the house and upon entering the house, he found Savitri weeping on the cot, and then she told the whole story. Ram Narain went towards fields to inform Banwarilal about it and in the way Bhagirath Bishnoi came out with a gun saying that the matter should not be taken further. On the same day a Panchayat was also held in which Bhagirath apologised on behalf of his son but considering the circumstances Savitri and her husband were not agreeable to this. On the same day i.e. on 29/10/1987 a first information report was lodged at the Police Station Raisinghanagar upon which a case was registered. Usual investigation was done. The prosecutrix Mst. Savitri was medically examined and though a definite opinion about rape could not be given as there was no positive finding indicating forcible intercourse as she was a married woman but the following injuries were found on her:- 1. Bruise blue coloured 5" x 1"(transverse) on dorsal aspect of right shoulder-simple-blunt. 2. Bruise blue coloured 6" x 1" (Transverse) on left scapular region upper part. Simple, Blunt. 3. Abrasion with dried clotted blood 1/ 3" x 1/8" on dorsomedial aspect on left index finger proximee phalanx. Simple, Blunt. 4. Abrasion with dried dark brown scab each 1/8" x linear on right cheek. Simple, Teeth bite. ' 5. Abrasions (four) with dried dark brown scab each 1/8" x lineer on left cheek. Simple Teeth bite. The clothes of the prosecutrix and her vaginal swab were not found postive for semen. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the testimony of Mst. Savitri holding her to be of sterling worth. On basis of her evidence corroborated by the medical evidence as far as the injuries were concerned and the statements of P.W. 5 Banwari Lal and P.W. 6 Ram Narain he found the case against the accused to be proved and convicted and sentenced as stated above.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the occurrence is said to be of 4.00 a.m. 29/10/1987 but the report of the incident was lodged at 9.00 p.m. on the same day even though the distance to the Police Station from the village is 18 Kms. According to him the case becomes suspicious on account of this delay. Referring to the occurrence it is contended that in the winter end of October, Savitri could not have been sleeping in the court yard and this also makes the story false. According to him the accused has been falsely implicated on account of some dispute about the share in the crops. It is also argued that no witness of the Panchayat has been examined which would have gone to show that the father of the appellant apologised for the act of his son.;