1. By the judgment under appeal, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.) and has been sentenced imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 376 I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, the convict is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year, and imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 506 I.P.C. It was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. This appeal has been preferred by the convict through the Superintendent, District Jail, Haridwar. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, and perused the lower court record.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 07.10.2012, P.W. 1 Smt. Bimla (victim) submitted a written report to Sub-Inspector Revenue, Region Mokh, Sub-Tehsil Ghat, Tehsil & District Chamoli, stating therein that a year back, she had undergone a heart surgery in Delhi. After few months, when she returned home her father Govind Singh asked her to cohabit with him, as he had spent Rs. 2,00,000/- on her treatment. On her refusal, he threatened her of dire consequences. When he found her alone, he committed rape on her, and over thereafter, he committed rape on her, continuously for a period of one year. The accused threatened her that if she discloses anything to anyone, she would be killed. She further reported that in the night of 24.09.2012 also, her father Govind Singh forcefully committed rape on her at home, at this occasion her mother Smt. Godambari Devi had gone to Gopeshwar. Again on 04.10.2012, her father tried to commit rape on her, but on her scream, her mother and sister Km. Poonam came and rescued her. On 05.10.2012, she went to Gopeshwar to the place of her maternal aunt Smt. Gaura Devi, later on, she came to know that on the very night, her father Govind Singh attempted to kill her mother Smt. Godambari Devi and her sister Km. Poonam. Both of them in order to save their lives, proceeded to her maternal grandmother''s place at village Farkhet. The complainant had apprehensions of danger, on her life. On the basis of said report, Case Crime No. 1 of 2012 was registered at Revenue Circle Mokh, Tehsil & District Chamoli against the accused/appellant Govind Singh, relating to offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. Investigation was taken up by P.W. 7 Himmat Singh Rautela, who interrogated the witnesses and started investigation. Statement of the victim as well as her sister, namely, Poonam was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant Govind Singh, for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial on 05.12.2012. After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar), framed charge of offences punishable u/s 376 & 506 I.P.C. against the accused Govind Singh to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined seven witnesses. In his defence, the accused also got examined four witnesses. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, he alleged that the evidence adduced against him is false. After hearing the parties, the trial Court found accused Govind Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.03.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar), in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2012, this appeal has been preferred by the convict, through Superintendent of Jail.
3. Medical examination of Smt. Bimla was conducted by Dr. Malti Yadav P.W. 5 on 09.10.2012. Medical report of the victim (Ex. A-2) is being reproduced below:
"External Genital Examination:
(i) No injury marks present over vulva, abdomen, thigh and breasts.
(ii) Ext. genital organs and accessory genital organs well developed.
(iii) Ext. vaginal os admitting two fingers easily and hymen ruptured."
The doctor opined that no injury marks or struggle signs were found over the body and genital organ. Two slides of vaginal smear were sent for pathological examination for spermatozoa identification. Doctor also opined that victim was habitual to sexual intercourse. She further opined that no definite opinion could be given regarding rape.
4. P.W. 1 Smt. Bimla is the victim, who in her testimony reiterated the averments made in the First Information Report. She proved the F.I.R. (Ext. A-1). Alleging her father/accused, for committing forceful rape, this witness also proved her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and reiterated the version made in the F.I.R.
5. P.W. 2 Smt. Godambari Devi (mother of the victim) stated, on oath, that she is illiterate and the accused is her husband. She stated that Bimla and Poonam are her daughters. It was around 09.00-10:00 p.m. on the 4th day of Hindu calendar month "Asooj", she heard the screams of her daughter Bimla. At that time, she was with her younger daughter Poonam in the room upstairs. On hearing the screams, they came out. They saw brawl between Govind Singh and Poonam. They set apart both of them, and thereafter, they went inside the room. Govind Singh also went to his room. Bimla told them that Govind Singh had raped her 3-4 times. The next day, Bimla went to her elder mother''s home. Thereafter, the accused told P.W. 2, why she helped Bimla to escape. He threatened her to bring Bimla and asked her to leave the house and said that only Bimla will reside with him. When Bimla did not return till night, the accused with the intention to kill her took out THAMALLA (weapon) and told her to bring Bimla, otherwise they would be killed. Then, she and Poonam in order to save their lives, left the house same night. She stated that her younger daughter Poonam also disclosed that the accused also committed rape on her, twice.
6. P.W. 3 Km. Poonam (sister of the victim) in her testimony corroborated the statements as narrated by P.W. 2 Smt. Godambari Devi. Besides this, she stated that before 5-6 months of lodging of F.I.R. by her sister, the accused by threatening her of dire consequences, also committed rape on her. Thereafter, after 12-14 days of the said incident, her father again committed rape on her.
7. P.W. 4 Mangal Singh is the brother-in-law of the accused. He, in his testimony, has stated that on 06.10.2012 at around 05:00 to 06:00 a.m., Poonam and her sister Smt. Godambari Devi in nervous state came to his home and disclosed him about the said incident. P.W. 5 Dr. Malti Yadav is the Medical Officer, who conducted medical examination of Bimla as well as of Poonam and proved their Medical Reports (Ext. A-2 and Ext. A-3). P.W. 6 Smt. Gaura Devi, in her testimony, stated that on 05.10.2012, Bimla daughter of the accused, went to her home. Her condition was not well. On asking, she disclosed that her father had committed rape on her. P.W. 7 is Sub-Inspector Himmat Singh Rautela, who during investigation recorded statement of the witnesses and after conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet (Ext. A-9).
8. In the backdrop of what has been stated above, at the outset, we have to examine, as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused that on the date, time and place, whether the accused committed rape on his daughter Bimla and whether the accused in committing rape, committed criminal intimation and grievously hurt Bimla and whether the judgment of court below suffers from any illegality infirmity or perversity.
9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. It is a case where two daughters have made allegation of rape against their father. In such circumstance, we have to examine the testimony of the girls very carefully. P.W. 1 Bimla, victim is daughter of the appellant. She has stated that the appellant committed rape on her by telling her that since he has spent Rs. 2,00,000/- lakhs on her treatment, she should permit him to make physical relation. On her refusal, he threatened her of dire consequences. When he found her alone, he committed rape on her, and thenceforth, rape was committed several times by threatening her. Reasons for not disclosing this fact to her mother was also stated by this witness. She has categorically stated that she was threatened by her father that in case she discloses commission of rape to anyone, she would be killed. This behavior of a shy daughter is usual. No girl can dare to implicate her father falsely for the shameful act of rape, that too leaving the real culprit. P.W. 3, younger daughter of the appellant stated that she was also raped by her father appellant repeatedly. This witness also stated that due to fear she did not disclose this fact to her mother. This witness disclosed the shameful act of rape by her own father only when she came to know that her elder sister was too raped by the appellant. If a girl is raped by her father, the mental agony which she faces at the time, cannot be explained. She remains in dilemma, whether she should disclose the incident of rape to her mother and if yes, how to disclose. Much time is needed to recover from this agony. In the present case, P.W. 1, Bimla could not disclose the incident of rape to her mother for a long time, due to threat given by her father but when water started flowing over the head and when her tolerance filled upto the brim, she disclosed everything to her mother. In the present case, two girls of the accused/appellant appeared before the Court and tendered evidence against their own father that they have been raped by him. Their testimony cannot be disbelieved. Moreover, rape is such type of crime, where independent witness cannot be produced. Appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that his daughters were in flesh trade business and when he tried to stop them, he has falsely been implicated but there is no iota of evidence, to prove this version. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment under appeal. In view of above discussions, the appeal is dismissed. Sentence awarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli, Gopeshwar in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2012 under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. against the appellant is hereby affirmed. The accused is in jail. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned in order to serve out the sentence awarded against the appellant and a copy be sent to the court below along with the Lower Court''s Record.
