Mahesh Grover, J.@mdashOn 18.11.2001, the innocence of one Anita daughter of Ram Parshad, aged 11-1/2 years, resident of village Dubheta, District Sonepat (hereinafter described as `the prosecutrix''), was brutally shattered when she was ravished by the Appellant.
2. The prosecutrix, who had gone to `Gitwara'' for dumping cattle dung, was returning towards her house at about 5.00 P.M. and when she reached in front of the cattle enclosure of the Appellant, she found him standing there. He snatched the empty tasla which she was carrying and dragged her into a room constructed in the cattle enclosure. He bolted the room from inside and forcibly laid her on a cot and thereafter, raped her. The prosecutrix raised cries of "Bachao-Bachao". Upon hearing her cries, her brother Anil reached there by chance. Anil tried to push the door open, but since it was bolted from inside, he could not do so. After some time, the Appellant opened the door and ran away. Anil brought the prosecutrix to their house where she narrated the whole story to her parents. The panchayat was also involved, who tried to hush up the matter by forcing a compromise. During these efforts, the Appellant is alleged to have caused injuries to the prosecutrix''s uncle, Rattan Singh and hant, Jagmati by giving Farsa blows to them on 19.11.2001.
3. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police upon which the formal FIR was recorded under the provisions of Section 376 of the IPC on 20.11.2001. The prosecutrix was taken to the Community Health Centre, Ganaur for medical examination. Finding no lady doctor present there, S.I. Sant Kumar, who had taken the prosecutrix there, went to the site for its inspection and for recording the statements of Anil, Rattan Singh and Jagmati and also of some of the villagers. The prosecutrix was again brought back to the Community Health Centre, Ganaur and was medically examined by the doctor on 20.11.2001. The sealed parcels containing salwar and two vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix were sealed in an envelope and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The Appellant was arrested on 4.12.2001 and was also medically examined by Dr. Shailender Kumar in Community Health Centre, Ganaur, who found him capable of performing sexual act.
4. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted a report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
5. A charge u/s 376 of the IPC was framed against the Appellant on 4.3.2002 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. After perusing the prosecution evidence which had come on record, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 5.6.2003, came to the conclusion that the Appellant''s guilt had been proved and accordingly, it convicted him for the offence punishable u/s 376 of the IPC. Vide its order dated 6.6.2003, the trial Court, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.
7. In the present appeal, the afore-stated judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been assailed by the Appellant.
8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the whole case has been foisted upon the Appellant on account of the fact that there was animosity between his family and the family of the prosecutrix and her brother, Anil, who is alleged to have reached the spot on hearing the cries of his sister. The date of occurrence is alleged to be 18.11.2001, whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.11.2001 which delay has also not been explained and it renders the prosecution version doubtful. Apart from this, no semen was detected on the clothes of the prosecutrix which were sent for chemical examination and no marks of injuries were found on her person implying that she had not been subjected to rape.
On the other hand, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant were stoutly opposed by the counsel for the State, who contended that a minor girl had been subjected to rape and there was no reason to falsely implicate the Appellant. The allegation of false implication on account of enmity between the families of the prosecutrix and the Appellant is not borne out from any evidence on record. Besides, the presence of the semen is not necessary for establishing the rape if there are attending circumstances which conclusively point to commission of offence.
9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
10. The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on 18.11.2001 at about 5.00 P.M. The information was given to S.I. Sant Kumar on 19.11.2001 at 11.40 P.M. There is evidence on record that when the matter was disclosed by the prosecutrix and her brother to their parents, they had gone to the house of the Appellant to complain about the incident and to add insult to the injury, the uncle of the prosecutrix, Rattan Singh and her aunt, Jagmati, were beaten up. It was thereafter that the matter was brought to the notice of the police on 19.11.2001 at 11.40 P.M. There is, thus, no delay in the lodging of the FIR and even if, a few hours had elapsed, that delay has been adequately explained. Therefore, it cannot be held that the delay was fatal to the prosecution case.
11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the medical evidence indicating the absence of semen on the clothes and vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix and no injury on her person establishes the fact that no rape was committed, cannot be accepted. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 20.11.2001 approximately two days after the occurrence. There is nothing on the record to suggest that she was wearing the same clothes which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. The vaginal swabs also hold no meaning because of the fact that the medical examination was not conducted on the same day or immediately thereafter.
12. In any case, the corroborative evidence in such cases requiring the fortification of the commission of offence of rape necessarily need not be there for reliance if the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence.
13. In their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:
"A plethora of decisions by this Court as referred to above would show that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the courts as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. It is also noticed that minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Non-examination of doctor and non-production of doctor''s report would not be fatal to the prosecution case, if the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. It is also noticed that the court while acquitting the accused on benefit of doubt should be cautious to see that the doubt should be a reasonable doubt and it should not reverse the findings of the guilt on the basis of irrelevant circumstances or mere technicalities."
14. In a Division Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court accepted the appeal of the State and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Rajasthan so far as it related to the offence u/s 376 of the IPC. Some of the observations made by their Lordships are extracted below:
"We, therefore, find it difficult to sustain the order of acquittal passed by the High Court in respect of the offence u/s 376 IPC. It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the Court is satisfied that the evidence of the prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded. In appropriate cases, the court may look for corroboration from independent source or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction. In the instant case, we find that the evidence of the prosecutrix is worthy of credit and implicitly reliable. The other evidence adduced by the prosecution, in fact, provides the necessary corroboration, even if that was considered necessary. The High Court on a clear misreading of the evidence on record, acquitted the Respondent on the charge u/s 376 IPC while upholding his conviction u/s 450 IPC."
Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the prosecutrix, who is aged about 11-1/2 years which fact has been established from the school certificate, had no reason to implicate the Appellant falsely. She has withstood the test of cross-examination well.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the prosecutrix was used as a pawn to settle scores as the families were inimical is neither inspiring nor is there any evidence on record to establish the same. In fact, it is the family of the Appellant, who had inflicted insult and injury to the family of the prosecutrix by first subjecting the minor to his carnal desire and thereafter, by beating up her family members when the matter was before the panchayat.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, which are accordingly upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
