IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.106 of 1994 Decided on : March 13, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Budh Ram @ Budhia and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby the respondents, who were tried for offences, punishable under Sections 376, 392 and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution version, as disclosed by PW-4, the prosecutrix, during the course of trial, may be summed up thus. About a year prior to the occurrence (date of occurrence is 20th July, 1991), respondent Budh Ram (Budhia) had taken away the sister-in-law (husband’s sister) of the prosecutrix, with intent to marry her, by paying an amount of Rs.800/-, as Reet (customary payment) to Mohtu, the father of the said sister-in-law of the prosecutrix. A month thereafter, respondent Budhia left the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix at Mohtu’s place. Thereafter, the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix settled with some other person, as his wife. Upon that, respondent Budhia asked for the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… return of Reet money, which he paid to the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. The matter was settled on 19th July, 1991. Mohtu, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix, agreed to pay Rs.450/- to Budhia and promised to pay the money, on the next following day. On 20th July, 1991, Budhia, accompanied by other respondents and four more persons, went to Mohtu’s house. The prosecutrix being daughter-in-law of Mohtu resided with him. Mohtu was not at home at that time nor was prosecutrix’s husband PW-6 Hira Singh present at that time. Respondents Budh Ram (Budhia), Shankru, Hardev Singh and Nain Singh forcibly took away the he-goat of Mohtu, on coming to know that Mohtu was not there nor was he able to arrange the money agreed by him on the previous day. Respondent Ganga Ram and one more unnamed and unidentified person, who were among the nine persons, who went to Mohtu’s house on 20th July, 1991, forcibly carried the prosecutrix, a mother of seven, to her living room. They threw her on the floor of the room and broke the string of her Salwar and then committed sexual intercourse with her, one after the other. The prosecutrix had given birth to a child only 1½ month before that incident. Her vagina started bleeding and she became unconscious. At the time of occurrence, the eldest son of the prosecutrix, aged about 13-14 years, was sleeping in that very room, in one corner. The prosecutrix cried for help, but the son, being in deep sleep, did not wake up. In the evening, husband of the prosecutrix, named PW-6 Hira Singh, returned. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to him. The prosecutrix was in bad shape and, therefore, she could not be taken to the Police Station that very day or even on the next following day. She was taken to the Police Station by her husband on the third day, i.e., on 22nd July, 1991. She narrated the incident to the Police. On the basis …3… of that narration, FIR Ex. PW-10/A was recorded. Matter was investigated. Prosecutrix produced two Salwars and a shirt. The same were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found stains of human blood on the two Salwars. 3. Trial Court has not believed the testimony of the prosecutrix. It has also not believed the evidence regarding the robbery of he-goat and the trespass. 4. We have gone through the evidence on record and also heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned Defence Counsel. 5. Admittedly, Mohtu, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix, had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.450/- to respondent Budhia, on account of refund of a portion of the Reet money, in the course of a settlement arrived at on 19th July, 1991, with the intervention of the village Panchayat and the amount was agreed to be paid by him on the next following day. It is not in dispute that on the next following day Budhia accompanied by certain persons went to collect the money from Mohtu to his house. Respondents belong to one village and Mohtu to another. When Budhia accompanied by other persons went to collect the settled amount of money, Mohtu was not at home. Respondents pleaded during trial that Mohtu had agreed that in case he failed to pay the settled amount on the next day Budhia would be entitled to take away his he-goat. PW-7 Gian Singh @ Gian Chand, Pradhan of the Panchayat, testified that the he-goat had been kept by Budhia as security for the payment of his amount of Rs.450/- and that when PW-6 Hira Singh paid the amount of Rs.450/- to a brother of Budhia, the he- goat was returned to Hira Singh. He stated that this happened during the investigation of the case. No doubt, the witness was declared hostile …4… but he being the Pradhan of the Panchayat and a responsible and respectable person, his statement cannot be brushed aside simply for the reason that he testified something different from the prosecution version. 6. It is in the aforesaid background that the evidence regarding the charge of rape, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix, who is mother of seven children, needs to be analyzed. 7. Before referring to the testimony of the prosecutrix, we may state that the parties in the present litigation come from an area where among the people of low caste marriages are not performed according to any rituals and ceremonies. The man would take away a woman by paying certain amount of money called Reet to her father, if the woman is unmarried. If she be already married, the Reet money is paid to the husband. No celebrations take place. The reason may be the poverty. Now, where the women are taken as wives on payment of money and even married woman can be so taken, on payment of money to her previous husband, which is not uncommon in the area, in question, it can legitimately be presumed that much importance is not attached to the chastity of the women nor does the chastity has any significance for the people of the area. 8. Prosecutrix reported to the Police, vide FIR Ex. PW10/A, that when she was dragged to the room by respondent Budhia and one unidentified man, her eldest son was not at home, as he had not returned from the school and her other children, numbering six, were asleep. However, while in the witness box, the prosecutrix stated that her eldest son, then aged 13 or 14 years, had already returned from school and was asleep in the very room where she was allegedly raped. When asked in the course of her cross-examination as to why she did not wake up her son, she stated that she did not consider it …5… necessary. The aforesaid contradiction in the FIR and the testimony of the prosecutrix and her statement that she did not consider it necessary to wake up her 13-14 years old son when she was being assaulted, cast a serious doubt about the correctness of her testimony. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 13, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J