IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 330-SB of 2003. Date of Decision: 27.2.2008 *** Ashok .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant was tried and ultimately convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, for commission of offences under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Under Section 376 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two years and under Section 506 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. As per prosecution version, on the night of 16.11.2001 when prosecutrix (PW.5) came out in the street to ease herself, the appellant put a cloth on her mouth and criminally intimidated her in case she raised noise. Thereafter, the appellant took her to his shop and committed rape with the prosecutrix. It is only when her father knocked at the shutter, the accused fled away from the spot. On these broad allegations, instant case was registered and investigated upon and on completion thereof final report was presented against the appellant and the learned trial Court on finding a prima facie case under Sections 376 and 506 IPC charge-sheeted the Crl. Appeal No. 330-SB of 2003 -2- appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate the charges against the appellant, the prosecutrix herself and her father Lachhman Dass stepped into the witness- box as PW5 and PW6 respectively, besides the prosecution examined Const. Inderpal as PW1, Dr. Rajiv Sethi as PW2, Dr. Manju Arora as PW3, Kanwar Singh Dahiya, Sub Registrar Births and Deaths as PW4, HC Kuldip Singh as PW7, HC Subhash Chander as PW8, HC Ravinder Kumar as PW9, SI Ram Kishan as PW10, HC Randhir Singh as PW11, Ram Parkash, Incharge Govt. Primary School Tanda Jagdishpur as PW12 and ASI Raj Singh as PW.13. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. In defence the appellant examined Karam Chand as DW.1, Ashok Batra as DW2, Arjun Devi as DW.3 and Banwari Lal Chowkidar as DW.4. After hearing the parties the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. The only argument that has been raised by the counsel for the appellant is that there was no external or internal injury on the person of the prosecutrix and this indicates that she was a consenting party. The contention is meritless. The absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegations or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. Similarly, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen. Even partial penetration or slight penetration would be quite enough to attract the definition of rape. That being so, it is quite Crl. Appeal No. 330-SB of 2003 -3- possible to commit the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In Balwant Singh and others v. Saudagar Singh, AIR 1987 SC-1080, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that every resistance need not necessarily be accompanied by some injury on the body of the victim and thus, absence of marks of external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix cannot be adopted as a formula for inferring consent on the part of the prosecutrix and holding that she was a willing party to the act of sexual intercourse and it will all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on a rough surface, rather the statement of the prosecutrix suggests that the accused had put her on a cot which was covered by a Chaddar(sheet) and in such a situation, there was no question of any injury on her person. The argument of the counsel for the appellant that going out of the house of the prosecutrix during midnight indicates of her consent, is again not tenable. PW-5, the prosecutrix, has categorically stated that initially, she raised noise “Bachao-Bachao” and then the accused gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth and in that situation, there would not have been any opportunity for the prosecutrix to raise the noise. Her version stands duly corroborated by the statement of her father who appeared as PW-6 who stated that on her hearing cries of her daughter, when he woke up, he saw that the cot of her daughter was lying vacant, upon which he went to the shop of the accused. In back-drop of these facts, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix did not raise any noise/cry and with this tenor of evidence, the argument of the defence that she was a consenting party falls to the ground. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant has contends that the present appellant has since undergone sentence of 4½ years and prayed for reduction in sentence. There is force in this contention. Keeping in view the young age of the accused-appellant, his sentence stands reduced from10 years to 7 years. As regards the sentence under Section 506 IPC and the sentence of fine, the same stand maintained. With the above modification in the manner of sentence, the appeal stands disposed of. February 27, 2008 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) Jiten/JS JUDGE