IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2011/24TH ASHADAH 1933 CRL.A.No. 1356 of 2003 ( ) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC.56/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPPALAM DATED 07-08-2003 APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------ SANTHOSH, S/O. RAJAN, CHOORAKKODE LAKSHAM VEEDU, KALLADIKODE, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. A. No. 1356 of 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this 15th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 452 and 376 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). According to prosecution, appellant-accused, who is a neighbour of PW4, trespassed into her house on 3.6.1996 at about 10 a.m., when there was nobody in the house and committed rape. She became pregnant. Her parents approached accused, when he admitted responsibility for pregnancy but, his mother was not willing for a marriage between PW4 and appellant. PW4 and parents waited, hoping that appellant would marry her but, it did not happen. Hence, a complaint was lodged on 8.1.1997. After investigation, charge was laid. 2. To prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. Accused did not adduce any evidence but, pleaded innocence. According to him, PW4 was working as a house-maid at Trichur and he was falsely implicated, after she returned from that house. The Additional Sessions Court, after consideration of records, Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 2 believed evidence of PW4 and held that accused committed offences under Section 450 and 376 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- etc. under Section 450 IPC. 3. Appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 376 of IPC. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. If fine is realised, it was ordered to be paid to PW4, under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The above conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal. 4. Heard both sides. Perused records. According to learned counsel for appellant, evidence of PW4 cannot be believed because of the several inconsistencies in her evidence. PW4 deposed in court that the incident happened on the first week of June 1996 but, to the doctor,who examined her on 8.1.1997, she stated that the incident happened three months back.PW4 did not give the date of delivery but, evidence of doctor shows that she was 8 months' pregnant at the time of examination. Therefore, the allegation that appellant committed rape of her on 3.6.1996 cannot be accepted, it is argued. Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 3 5. It is also argued that PW4 is residing in a colony and there are many persons in the neighbourhood. The incident allegedly happened at 10 a.m. and if PW4 had raised voice, it would have been noticed by somebody. But, she has no case that anybody from neighbourhood came to place of occurrence or rescued. Therefore, it may be a case where the incident happened with the consent, it is submitted. 6. It is also argued that there are contradictions in respect of tearing of dresses. PW1 stated in her evidence that the nighty was torn by the accused but, she had no such case before the police. In such circumstances, evidence of PW4 cannot be believed, it is argued. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly argued that mere absence of the neighbour's intervention cannot be made a ground to disbelieve PW4. PW4's house is situated in a colony and inmates of the house go for work and the children go to school and nobody would be left at home. In the house of PW4, her parents and brother are living. But, at the crucial time at 10 a.m. they were not present and her parents had gone for work and brother to the school. She was left all alone in the house. The evidence of PW4 will show Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 4 that accused had trespassed into the house with intention to commit rape and he had committed the offence also. 8. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the only contradiction brought out from evidence of PW4 is that the nighty was torn off, but for that mere reason, it may not be proper to discard evidence of PW4, as a whole. It is pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that PW1 had stated in first information statement and also in her evidence that incident happened in June, 1996 and she had gone to the doctor only thereafter. Therefore, it is unlikely that she would make such a statement that the incident happened 3 months back. 9. It is also pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that PW4 had given evidence that after six months of the incident her parents and herself had approached accused and there was a mediation talk. In such circumstances, only because the doctor gave a statement that incident happened 3 months back, as spoken to by PW4 to him, evidence of PW4 may not be rejected, it is argued. 10. On hearing both sides and on going through the records, I find that only two contradictions are pointed out by Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 5 learned defence counsel to discard evidence of PW4. According to PW4, incident happened in the first week of June, 1996. But, evidence of PW7-doctor shows that PW4 made an allegation that the rape was committed 3 months back. The said fact was recorded in Ext.P6-wound certificate also. But, evidence of the doctor shows that PW4 was 8 months pregnant at the time of examination. Therefore, the allegation and the offence committed on examination will not tally. 11. But, alleged statement given to doctor PW7 is not proved actually. Though the doctor gave a statement that PW4 made any allegation of rape to the doctor that rape was committed only 3 months back, no question was put to PW4 whether such a statement was made. In the absence of drawing the attention of PW4 to the alleged contradiction in the alleged statement made to the doctor, her evidence cannot be discarded, with refer to her former statement allegedly made by her. 12. A contradiction can be used to impeach evidence of a witness. But, in the absence of PW4 being confronted with such a statement, evidence given by doctor on alleged Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 6 statement given to him can only be treated as hearsay. As pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, it is also unlikely that she would make a statement to the doctor to the effect that the incident happened 3 months prior to the examination, since immediately prior to her going to the doctor, she had given a different version to the police in Ext.P4. 13. According to PW4, as per the version given by her in the first information statement, the incident happened in June, 1997 i.e. 8 months back of the examination by doctor. In such circumstances, alleged contradiction regarding alleged version given by PW4 should have been confronted with the alleged former statement made to the doctor. Since that was not done, I am not inclined to act upon the alleged contradiction, so as to discard the evidence of PW4. 14. It is true that PW4 stated in her evidence that nighty was torn off but, she had no such case before the police. Though she was cross-examined, except this contradiction, nothing was brought out to discredit her version. Of course, PW4 stated that she made a hue and cry when accused attempted to rape her. It is also brought out Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 7 from her evidence that there are 3 houses in the close neighbourhood. But, PW4 has no case that they came to the spot, on hearing the crime. 15. However, the fact whether inmates of the house were available in the house or not is not clear from evidence. The prosecution ought to have clarified it in the re- examination. But, even such an omission alone may not be sufficient to cast doubt on the version given by PW4. As pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, the house is situated in a colony and the parents of PW4 themselves were not available in the house. Her brother was also not present. 16. The accused is a neighbour of PW4 and, in all probability, he would confirmed absence of people of the locality in their respective houses at the relevant time. Hence, for the sole reason that neighbours did not rush to the house and they did not hear any hue and cry etc., is not a reason to reject the evidence of PW4. No neighbour gave evidence that they were present in the house and there was no cry from the house. 17. However, contradiction in medical evidence and evidence of PW4 was pointed out by the defence to show that Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 8 the child would not have been born as a consequence of the alleged rape. It is also submitted that DNA test was not conducted in this case. In a case involving rape, the court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry regarding paternity of the child. Prosecution case cannot be discarded for the reason that no DNA test was conducted. 18. The evidence of PW4 is intact regarding the allegation that accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that going by the medical evidence and the evidence of PW4, it is possible that PW4 could conceive, if rape had taken place on 3.6.1996, as alleged by the prosecutrix. 19. Learned counsel for appellant strongly argued that as per doctor's evidence, the uterus was 32 weeks size. Calculating the period with reference to alleged date of occurrence namely, 3.6.1996 size would only be 31 weeks and two days. Therefore, if at all she has become pregnant, it may not be due to the incident which allegedly occurred on 3.6.1996, but it may be in an incident prior to the said date, it is submitted. Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 9 20. It is also submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing of the complaint. She waited for eight months of her pregnancy to file a complaint. According to the doctor and as per Ext.P6, she was eight months pregnant. It is argued that it is held in decision reported in 2008 (14) SCC 763 that in a case where e there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR and no DNA test was conducted, to find out whether the child was born on the alleged incident of rape or whether accused was responsible for the birth of child, evidence of prosecutrix alone has to be looked into. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that medical evidence is only an opinion evidence and size of uterus is stated to be `approximate'. Therefore, based on such evidence relating to the probable size of uterus alone, which is only approximate, evidence of PW4 cannot be rejected. It is also argued that delay in lodging the complaint is explained by prosecutrix. She became pregnant and she informed the parents only when her belly got enlarged and it was visible. By the time, it was six months after the incident. 22. Thereafter, PW4's parents approached accused while he admitted the incident, it is submitted. But only Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 10 because his mother did not agree, that settlement was fizzled out. In such circumstances, there was a delay of eight months in lodging the complaint. But such delay cannot be a ground to disbelieve PW4 especially since her evidence is discredited by cross examination and the explanation is only acceptable, it is argued. 23. It is also argued that there are various decisions to the effect that in a case involving rape, the DNA test is not very relevant and in the absence of DNA test, the prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved. It is also argued that if evidence of prosecutrix is believable, the court can convict a person on the basis of such findings. On going through evidence of PW4, it can be seen that her evidence is not discredited in respect of the incident alleged by her. 24. The fact that accused had gone to her house when other inmates of the house were not available in the house is only believable. Her evidence stood unshattered by cross examination. No reason is stated by accused why PW4 should implicate the accused, if any other person was actually responsible. Coming to the medical evidence it can be seen that doctor has only stated that uterus size was 32 weeks, Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 11 when he was examined in court as PW7. There is no cross examination of PW7. 25. From the evidence of PW7 it is cleat that uterus size need not be the same size of the foetus. Therefore, the size of uterus as 32 weeks cannot be said to be the size of fetus. Even otherwise, evidence relating to the size is only approximate. Evidence of prosecutrix cannot be discarded. Evidence of medical expert in respect of approximate size of uterus cannot be used for discrediting version given by prosecutrix relating to rape. 26. If the court cannot come to a definite conclusion regarding the date of conception on the basis of medical evidence, it may not be proper to reject the evidence of prosecutrix based on medical evidence alone. The evidence of PW7 does not reveal the probable date at which prosecutrix could have conceived. As pointed out by learned public prosecutor, no suggestion was made to doctor that PW4 could not have conceived on 3.6.1996. 27. In such circumstances, medical evidence is not sufficient to discredit the evidence of PW4 or even to cast a reasonable doubt on the version give by PW4 relating to the Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 12 alleged rape. Even if entire argument of the defence counsel is accepted the medical evidence cannot be used for disbelieving PW4. At any rated, medical evidence is not sufficient to throw evidence of PW4 over board. 28. It is true that in the decision cited by learned defence counsel reported in Salekh Chand (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Satya Gupta and Others [2008(13)SCC 119] it is held, in cases that delay of about seven months, there may not be medical evidence to establish any injury on prosecutrix and accused may find it difficult to challenge the evidence of prosecutrix. But, it can also be seen that in the decision reported in Ramdas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra [2007 (2) SCC 170] it is held that no straight jacket formula can be evolved and each case rests on its own facts. 29. Different cases have different facts. There are cases where there will be initial hesitation of prosecutrix to disclose the facts and there will be delay in lodging the report. She may give explanation. The court has to analyse the evidence and find out what is the effect of delay and it is a matter of appreciation of evidence, in the background of Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 13 facts and circumstances of each case. So mere delay in lodging the report may not itself be fatal to prosecution case. 30. In the case at hand, PW4 has given explanation for the delay and it appears to be acceptable. The trial court has given reasons for accepting the explanation. I do not find any reason to take a different view. Therefore, mere delay in lodging the complaint, on the facts of this case cannot be made a ground to reject testimony given by PW4. In a rape case, it is not necessary for prosecution to prove paternity of the child since it is not relevant for consideration. 31. Before concluding, I must refer to another important aspect in this case. When the case came up for hearing, it was submitted that there was certain disputes between the parties regarding their rights and liabilities and also that of the child etc., which can be settled in Lok Adalat. The impression conveyed was that if paternity of the child can be established in Lok Adalat, revision petitioner was prepared to marry prosecutrix and rights of the child for maintenance etc. also can be decided. 32. Since the said dispute has nothing to do with alleged commission of rape or the alleged offence, this Court Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 14 referred the case to the Lok Adalat, since this Court identified an appropriate matter which could be decided by the Lok Adalat. It was made clear in the order of reference that the matter which was referred is not offence under Section 376 IPC. As per Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, a reference is possible under three circumstances. A reading of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act is also very clear on this aspect. 33. If the parties in any case agree or one of the parties makes an application to court for referring the case to Lok Adlat for settlement and if the court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances for settlement or if the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. In this case, both the parties requested for reference and, on hearing both sides, this court identified that there is an appropriate matter to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat which referred to the dispute in respect of marriage, paternity of child as well as rights of the child to get maintenance etc. Therefore, the case was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement of such Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 15 appropriate matter. 34. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 shows that where any case is referred to a Lik Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it, under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. It is abundantly clear from Sub-section (3) of Section 20 that the Lok Adalat shall dispose of either the case or the matter by arriving at a compromise or settlement between the parties. In this case, what was referred to was the matter relating to a dispute in respect of the marriage and the rights of the child. 35. The Lok Adalat, therefore, ought to have disposed of the matter and not the case. This Court had not intended to refer the case to Lok Adalat, since the case involves offence under Section 376 IPC which is a non-compoundable offence. A reading of Section 19 makes it clear that as per sub-section (5) of Section 19, Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable in law. 36. The Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 16 and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of any case pending or any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction and is not brought before any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. There can be no doubt that dispute between the parties relating to their marriage and the rights of the child, whose paternity is disputed, is a matter which could be settled at the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties in respect of such a dispute. 37. Since there is a bar under Section 19(5) for determining and arriving at a compromise or settlement in respect of a case or matter relating to a non-compoundable offence it was made clear in the order itself that what was referred to by this Court is not the offence under Section 376 IPC. After reference, the parties appeared before the Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat sent back the records. The proceedings before the Lok Adalat along with an award which is signed by both parties and the members of the Lok Adalat are sent back to this Court. The Lok Adalat passed the following award: Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 17 “The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having been compromised/settled the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of settlement (Vide detailed award appended)”. 38. In the proceedings sheet, members of the Lok Adalat signed and it is recorded that parties and learned Government Pleader and counsel for the accused were present. Some discussions were held and both parties “agreed that the father of the child born to the de facto complaint is not the accused Santhosh. It is also revealed that both Mr. Santhosh and Mrs.Bindhu are now married and having children. The de facto complainant has no objection in acquitting the accused and she further says that she has no claim against the accused by way of maintenance to the child or otherwise. After recording this undertaking of the parties the file is returned to the Honourable Court for final judgment in the appeal.” 39. On going through the proceedings sheet, some doubt arose. It is recorded that the parties were married and they are having children also and parties agreed that the father of the child born to the de facto complainant is not the Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 18 accused. Had the parties been married and they were also having children, it is not understand why both parties agreed that the child was not born to accused. Hence, to clarify the position, learned Public Prosecutor was asked to discuss the matter with the parties. 40. After discussion, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the parties did not marry each other. They married independently and they are also having children in such wedlocks. He also reported that de facto complainant was forced by the accused to make a statement that he is not the father of the child. It is reported that defacto complainant was threatened by accused to make such a statement, failing which he told her that the present husband would be informed that the child who is living in her father's house is her illegitimate child. 41. According to defacto complainant, present husband is not aware of her pregnancy or that she is the mother of the child who is residing in her parental house. Hence, to avoid complication in the present family and other complications, she was forced to say make such statement. There can be no doubt that the above type of recording of the Crl.A No.1356 of 2003 19 proceedings by the Lok Adalat has led to various complications. First of all, it is not necessary for the Lok Adalat to record any such facts in the proceedings. The jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat is only to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties in respect of a case or matter. 42. The Lok Adalat has to identify what matter they are dealing with and whether Lok Adalat had jurisdiction to deal with such matter. Lok Adalat will have jurisdiction to decide only a case or matter which could be compromised or settled. If a compromise or settlement is arrived at and the award can be passed in respect of a case or matter by recording such compromise and passing an award, it may pass such award. It is needless to say that a matter or case which cannot be compromised or settled or disposed of by a compromise, no award can be passed