Tekan Alias Tekram vs State Of M.P (Now Chhattisgarh)

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix was residing with her father at Village Nandini Khundini. Her mother had left and married somewhere else and, thereafter, the prosecutrix was living with her three brothers Nand Kumar, Iswari and Baldau. Along with brother of prosecutrix Iswari, the accused Tikendra was also studying. Because of the friendship, the accused used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and was in conversation with her. It is the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix used to remain alone in her house, the accused used to visit her and expressed her that he is in love with her. Further, the case of the prosecution is that about one year before the incident, the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone. Thereafter, the accused had told her that he is in love with her and will marry her and wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix tried to avoid it since she was a blind girl, but the prosecutrix was told by the accused that he will marry her and will give her all support and, therefore, she submitted herself to the accused. Thereafter, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the prosecutrix remained alone in the house, the accused used to come and commit sexual intercourse with her. By such course of action, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the prosecutrix told the accused to marry her. At that point of time, the accused stopped visiting the house of the prosecutrix. Subsequent to it, the incident was disclosed to the father of the prosecutrix who called the meeting of the Panchayat in the Village. In the Panchayat, the accused was also called. It is the case of the prosecution that in the Panchayat, the accused admitted the fact that he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix but refused to marry her and left the Panchayat. It was the specific case of prosecution that though the prosecutrix was blind, she could recognize the accused person by his voice and by touch.

4. It reveals that the matter was investigated by the police and the prosecutrix was also subjected to medical examination and finally a charge- sheet was filed under Section 376 IPC. Number of witnesses was examined from the prosecution side including the Doctor who submitted the medical examination report (Ex.P2 and P3) and the radiologist who obtained X-Ray of the prosecutrix and gave his report (Ex. P4) confirming the age of the prosecutrix as approximately 18 years. The prosecutrix was also examined as PW-1, who narrated the entire incident and the manner in which she was subjected to sexual abuse. In her evidence, she has categorically stated that she is blind but she could recognize a person by his voice. She has also stated that the accused-appellant had told her that he will keep her. She has further stated that the accused committed rape on her and, thereafter, whenever she used to stay alone in the house the accused- appellant used to come and committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. It has further come in evidence that when the prosecutrix became pregnant the accused stopped visiting her house. She has further stated that after the incident was disclosed by her the accused was called before the Panchayat.

17. Indisputably, no amount of money can restore the dignity and confidence that the accused took away from the victim. No amount of money can erase the trauma and grief the victim suffers. This aid can be crucial with aftermath of crime.

18. The victim, being in a vulnerable position and who is not being taken care of by anyone and having no family to support her either emotionally or economically, we are not ordering the respondent-State to give her any lump sum amount as compensation for rehabilitation as she is not in a position to keep and manage the lump sum amount. From the records, it is evident that no one is taking care of her and she is living alone in her Village. Accordingly, we in the special facts of this case are directing the respondent-State to pay Rs.8,000/- per month till her life time, treating the same to be an interest fetched on a fixed deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. By this, the State will not be required to pay any lump sum amount to the victim and this will also be in the interest of the victim.

19. In the result, we dismiss the appeal having no merit and issue the following directions:-