1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No. 413 of 2007 Kan Singh S/o Sri Amar Singh R/o Village Moterash Police Station Vadnour District – Bhilvara, Rajasthan ……Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Respondent Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the respondent/State. With Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2007 Hari S/o Nanu Ram R/o Vidka Khera, P.S. Gulabpura District Bhilwara, Rajasthan ……Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Respondent Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the respondent/State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Since both the above appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 11.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in S.T. No. 11 of 2006, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment. These appeals have been preferred against the aforesaid impugned judgment and order whereby the accused/appellants Kan Sing and Hari have been convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of 10,000/- u/s 376 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellants would further undergo S.I. for one year. The accused/appellants were also convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of 500/- u/s 506 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall further undergo S.I. for 2 15 days each. It was further directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. Brief facts as emerged from the record reveals that on 06/05/2006, the prosecutrix had been going on a bus from Nogaon to Purola to meet her known person. During the course of the journey, two persons (appellants) met her and they asked her that they would treat her blind eyes. They caught her hands and got down at Purola. Thereafter, they took her to Hotel Kamal Ganga in the night. During the course of the night they forced her to consume liquor in the hotel. Thereafter, the accused/appellants committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the victim. It is further revealed that the accused/appellants were naming each other as Kan Singh and Hari. They were also talking about installation of the hand pump at Naitgard. While committing forcible sexual intercourse upon the victim, the accused/appellants also threatened her to kill if she would make any hue and cry. The victim remained quite during such period. On the next morning, the accused/appellants took the victim on a truck to Mori. In the said truck, four other persons were also sitting alongwith the accused/appellants. They stopped the said truck on the road and again the four persons who were going in the truck alongwith the accused/appellants committed rape upon the victim. Thereafter, the accused/appellants Kan Singh alighted the victim at Mori barrier from the truck. Thereafter, a person came there and informed about the victim to Mahila Samakhaya which was run by Km. Kavita PW1. The victim narrated the entire story to Vijendra Singh PW12 as well as other persons to whom she met after the incident. Thereafter, a report was lodged to the revenue police Chowki Mori on 07/05/2006 by Km. Kavita, a member 3 of Mahila Samakhaya (an NGO organization). As the case pertains to the police station Purola, the investigation was transferred to regular police. Thereafter, the victim was examined by the doctors. The matter was investigated by the police and chargsheet was submitted against the accused/appellants. 3. After submission of chargesheet, the accused were committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charge u/s 376 and 506 I.P.C. against the accused/ appellants. The accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Km. Kavita PW1 is a member of Mahila Samakhya (an NGO Organization) and she has lodged the report in the police station about the incident. Dr. Vinod Kumar PW2, Dr. Budhi Singh Bist PW3 and Dr. Sudha Singh PW4 are the Medical Officers who have examined the victim. Jayendra Singh Rana PW5 is the Patwari who on receiving the information started the investigation and later on the investigation was transferred to regular police. Constable 10 C.P. Dhanram Sharma PW6, L.C. 31 C.P. Swasti PW11 and Constable 138 C.P. Satish Kumar PW13 are the formal police witnesses. Baldev Singh PW7 is the owner of Kamal Ganga hotel at Purola. PW8 is the prosecutrix. Kana Ram PW9 and Pradeep Ram PW10 are the workers who worked for the installation of boring machines. Vijendra Singh PW12 has seen the victim near Sapna Hotel. S.O. Virendra Singh PW14 is the investigating officer of this case. 4 5. The accused-appellants were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the offence. They have further stated that the police have implicated them falsely in this case. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciation of the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them as indicated above. Whereas the other accused Ram Avtar and Ankhi Candey were acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 7. I have heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for appellant Hari; Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Amicus Curiae for the appellant Kan Singh; and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the respondent/State. 8. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that it is not disputed that the victim is a helpless lady. One person named Deependra brought the victim to Nainbagh on the pretext that he would treat her eyes but he left her there. Thereafter, from Nainbagh, the victim was taken to Barnigad where she worked in Suman Hotel for 12 days. Thereafter, when the victim was going to Purola to meet someone who was known to her but during the course of her journey, taking advantage of her helplessness and blindness, she was subjected to rape on the date and time as alleged by the prosecution on the false pretext. The prosecution examined the victim as well as the medical officers whose evidences established that the victim was subjected to rape in the intervening night of 06-07/05/2006. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the accused/appellants are responsible for the commission of offence or not. 5 9. It is pertinent to mention here that it is well settled position of law that if the evidence of victim is found reliable, it does not require any corroboration on the material points. The prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. If the court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of victim is reliable and cogent, it does not need any further corroboration of any other independent and corroborative piece of evidence. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self- esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a victim, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. Basically, it is a crime against basic human rights. Keeping in view of the aforesaid circumstances it must be expected from the court to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. 10. The prosecution in order to prove its case adduced the evidence of the victim as PW8. She has stated in her evidence that her mother is alive whereas her father had died about 8-9 years ago from the date of incident. A resident of 6 her village namely Deependra brought her to Nogaon for getting treatment of her eyes. She is totally blind and she has lost her eyesight about 1-1/2 years ago from the date of her evidence. She has further stated that Deependra got her examined by the doctor at Nainbagh and thereafter he left her there. From Nainbagh, she was brought to Barnigad by a person where she cleaned utensils in the hotel for about 12 days. Thereafter, she went to Nogaon for a day. From Nogaon she took a bus for Purola to meet Vikram who was known to her. During the course of the journey, the accused/appellants met her and they asked her to accompany them so that they could get treatment of her eyes at Purola. She accompanied them and remained in Hotel Kamal Ganga in the night where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. She has further stated that she was threatened to dire consequences if she would seek any help. On the next day, i.e. 07/05/2006 she was again brought on truck from Purola to Mori by the accused/appellants. In the truck, there were four other persons sitting alongwith the accused/appellants. They stopped the truck on the way and with the assistance of the accused/appellants, the other four persons also subjected her to rape. Thereafter, she was left at Mori gate in helpless condition from where Vijendra Singh met her. She narrated the entire pathetic story to him and thereafter she was handed over to Mahila Samakhaya. 11. Dr. Sudha Singh PW4 examined the victim on 09/05/2006 and she opined that the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse. She did not find any injury on external part of her body. The doctor further opined that there was tenderness in the vagina which could be possible due to the commission of the rape upon the victim. 7 12. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of Kana Ram PW9 and Pradeep Ram PW10 who were traveling on the truck on 07/05/2006. These witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution and they did not support the prosecution version. Vijendra Singh PW12 has stated in his evidence that on 07/05/2006 he met to the victim and the victim narrated the entire story to him. This witness has further stated that he informed Km. Kavita PW1 about the incident and thereafter, the victim was taken to Mahila Samakhaya (an NGO organization). Km. Kavita PW1 has stated in her evidence that she alongwith other ladies runs an NGO society known Mahila Samakhaya whose main object is the up- liftment of the helpless ladies. When Vijendra Singh PW12 informed her about the victim, she alongwith other ladies went to Sapna Hotel from where she was brought to her office. Thereafter, the victim has narrated the entire story and she lodged the report to the Patti Patwari. The prosecution also examined Baldev Singh PW7 who runs Kamal Ganga hotel at Purola. He was also declared hostile. He has stated that a person named Omi who belongs to Himachal Pradesh works for the installation of boring machine in the villages. He has also stated that the accused/appellants used to visit frequently and stay in his hotel alongwith Omi. After perusal of the entire evidence, the trial court found the prosecution evidence credible and cogent. 13. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants contended that Dr. Sudha Singh PW4 has not explicitly opined in her evidence that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse or not. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants further 8 contended that were no mark of injuries on the external part of the victim, as such, it could not be said that the victim was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants further contended that even if the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, she was a consenting party for the alleged offence. It was further contended that the victim was taken to different places but she did not sought any help which infers that the victim was a consenting party. The learned Brief Holder refuted the contentions and supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. It is true that the victim had not received any injury on external part of her body but there was presence of tenderness in her vagina. The doctor has opined that the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse. The victim PW8 has categorically stated in her evidence that the accused/appellants forcibly administered liquor to her before committing rape upon her. It is also in the evidence that while committing the commission of offence, the accused/appellants threatened the victim of the dire consequences. It is also pertinent to mention here that the victim was a helpless lady who was wondering from one place to other and nobody was there to help her. Even if the victim could have raised a voice in a closed room, nobody would be there to come to her rescue. If the victim had made cry, she would have the apprehension of inviting further trouble for her. Viewing these circumstances, the victim remained silent spectator of the commission of the offence and submitted her under duress to the accused/appellants. This is the reason that the victim could not sustain any injury on external part of her body. It is also pertinent to mention here that the victim is habitual to sexual intercourse, as such, she could not sustained any injury on her private part except 9 tenderness on her private part due to forcible submission. Dr. Sudha Singh PW4 has opined that tenderness on the private part of the victim reveals that the victim was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. As pointed out earlier that the victim was subjected to threats by the accused/appellants as alleged by her. She was victim of the commission of offence, as such nobody was there to help her in such a situation. The silence on the part of the victim is of no avail to the defence and in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that the victim was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. The learned counsel for the accused/appellants further contended that according to Constable Dhanram Sharma PW6 the underwear of the accused/appellants were taken into possession by the police on 09/05/2006 after two days of the incident. It was further contended that the report of the forensic science laboratory dated 23/02/2007 reveals that there was no marks of semen in the underwear of the accused/appellants. Learned Brief Holder refuted the contention. Perusal of the forensic report reveals that the brown colour underwear (Ex.1) which pertains to accused Hari had a semen spot whereas in the underwear (Ex.2) which belongs to accused Kan Singh had no semen spot. According to Investigating Officer Virender Singh PW14, the accused/appellants were arrested on 09/05/2006 from village Naitward, Tehsil Mori. Thereafter, they were taken to the police station. It is apparent that the accused Kan Singh was arrested after two days of the incident. It cannot be ruled out that accused/appellant Kan Singh would not have 10 changed his underwear. Thus, the fact that semen spots were found in the underwear of accused Hari further gives credence to the prosecution version and connect the accused/appellants in the commission of the offence. It is a corroborative piece of evidence. Salwar Ex.6 of the victim was also sent for the forensic laboratory and semen spots were found on it. This evidence further fortifies that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. Thus, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim and other witnesses. The learned counsel for the accused/appellants further laid emphasize that the victim has given her statement before the Magistrate that she was the only daughter of her mother whereas in evidence she has stated that she had one more sister who has been living with her mother in the village. The second discrepancy which was pointed out by the learned counsel is that the victim in her evidence had stated that she had lost her eye sight 1-1/2 years ago whereas in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she had stated that she lost her eye sight 6-7 years ago. The other discrepancy which was pointed out by the appellants is that the accused/appellant took her to the hotel at 4:00 p.m. but in the statement it is stated that she was taken to hotel at about 7:00 p.m. in the night. The learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out that some of the witnesses have stated that the victim was brought to the office by some known person as Rana whereas other witnesses including Km. Kavita PW1 has stated that she alongwith other ladies brought the prosecutirx to her office. Learned Brief Holder 11 refuted the contention. The victim is a blind lady, as such she could not notice the time exactly. If she has stated 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. it hardly makes any difference because the blind could not distinguish between day and night. Even she was taken from one place to another, she could not explain the places where she met to the witnesses. The blindness of the victim itself explains the discrepancies which she had made about taking to her in the office of Km. Kavita PW1 and hotel. When she lost her eye sight, it is immaterial for the present scenario of the case. How many brothers and sisters the victim has is also immaterial. As far as the incident is concerned, the victim remained consistent during her cross examination. Her evidence is totally credible and cogent. She has stated the vivid details of the incident in her evidence without any colour and her evidence is natural one. The victim is an illiterate lady and being a blind, she could not distinguish the days, years and other things. I have gone through the entire evidence of the victim. The minor discrepancies are bound to creep in the testimony of the truthful, natural and reliable witness. I do not find any such discrepancy, which makes the evidence of the victim untrustworthy. The victim was wandering from one place to another and there was nobody to encourage her to give the tutored version. The defence has not put forward any enmity to any of the witnesses or with the victim. In such a situation, the victim would not falsely implicate the accused/appellants and she would like to get scot free the real culprits. It would be the endeavour of the victim to get the culprit punished. Thus, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 12 16. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants further contended that as the victim was a blind and no identification of voice was conducted by the prosecution during the investigation; the appellants had not participated in the commission of the offence; and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned Brief Holder supported the findings recorded by the trial court. It is true that no voice identification was conducted during the investigating by the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence and suggestion that there was any enmity of the appellants with the victim. There is no effective cross examination to any of the witnesses produced by the prosecution that the witnesses had any enmity with the accused/appellants. If there is no enmity and illwill against the accused/appellants why the prosecutrix falsely implicate the accused/appellants in this case. The evidence of the victim clearly reveals that while staying in the room, the accused/appellants were calling each other as Hari and Kan Singh. She has stated that when she was alighted by the truck, accused/appellant Kan Singh alighted her. Kana Ram PW9 though declared hostile but stated in his evidence that on 07/05/2006 all the persons working in the boring at Nogaon alongwith accused/appellants Kan Singh and Hari were going on the truck bearing No. 3029. Thus, the presence of accused/appellants Kan Singh and Hari is established by the evidence of Kana Ram PW9. He has on the one hand stated that no girl was sitting in the truck but on the other hand he has stated that he had no knowledge as to whether any girl was sitting in the truck or not. Thus, it is established that accused/appellants Kan Singh and Hari were on the truck on 07/05/2006. It is settled position of law if a hostile witness is supporting the prosecution version to that effect that can be 13 read in evidence. In the cross examination, this witness had stated that on 07/05/2006, the accused/appellants were sitting on the vehicle belonging to boring office. Thus, it is established that the appellants were sitting on the truck which pertains to Boring office. Pradeep Ram PW10 who was a passenger of the said truck has stated that accused/appellants Kan Singh and Hari were also sitting in the boring truck. He has denied that any lady was sitting in this truck. The presence of the accused/appellants on 07/05/2006 in the truck is established. The victim being blind could not have any other method for identifying the accused/appellants but to recognized them by their voice. Whatever the victim heard, she has stated in her evidence as above. Thus, it is established from the above evidence that the accused/appellants have participated in the commission of the offence. 17. After going through the entire evidence, I find that the evidence of the victim is totally credible and cogent. There is nothing in the cross examination to discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants. I find that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in S.T. No. 11 of 2006. The accused- appellants are liable to be convicted and sentence as awarded by the trial court. Hence, the appeals are liable to be 14 dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Let the copy of the order be placed in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2007. 19. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance. Compliance report be submitted within a period of four months. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 10th July, 2008 Shiv 15