KRISHAN Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,N.V. RAMANA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001342-001342 / 2012
Diary number: 15096 / 2012
Advocates: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL Vs
NARESH BAKSHI
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2012
KRISHAN … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 3 rd March,
2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding the order
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicting the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506,
IPC.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that at the instance of
the prosecutrix (PW-10) an F.I.R. dated 6th October, 2001 was lodged
1
at the Police Station Old Faridabad, Haryana against the appellant
invoking Sections 376 and 506, IPC. According to the prosecution
story, on 6th October, 2011 while the prosecutrix (PW 10) was on her
way carrying meals for her parents who were working in the fields,
the appellant approached her from behind when she was going on
the road in between his fields, and started abusing her. When she
protested, the appellant overpowered and pushed her as a result of
which she fell down on the ground. The appellant then gagged her
mouth and forcibly took her to the nearby ‘arhar’ fields and committed
rape on her.
3. After the case was registered, investigation commenced and
the prosecutrix was got medically examined on 6th October, 2001
itself. The accused appellant was arrested on the next day and he
was also got medically examined. After recording the statement of
prosecutrix under Section 164, Cr.P.C., the case property was sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal and the case was
committed to the Court of Session. Subsequently, charges under
Sections 376 and 506, IPC were framed against the accused
appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2
4. While the prosecution in all examined as many as 12 witnesses
to substantiate its allegations against the accused, there were two
defence witnesses.
5. Dr. Meenu Kapoor, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad
(PW 8) who medically examined the prosecutrix opined that there
was possible sexual intercourse, but there was no external injury
mark anywhere on the body of the prosecutrix. She deposed before
the Trial Court that human semen was detected on undergarments of
the victim.
6. Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW 2 who examined the accused appellant
found nothing which could suggest that the accused could not
perform sexual intercourse. He also noticed bone injuries on the right
forearm, left hand, right shoulder and right leg of the accused, which
are simple in nature.
7. PW-11, father of the victim supported the prosecution story. He
deposed that after hearing the noise of his daughter, he reached the
spot and saw the accused running. When he tried to apprehend the
accused, he ran away.
8. It is the case of the appellant before the Trial Court that the
prosecutrix had intentionally implicated him in this case as she had
3
developed personal grudge against him because he along with his
father (DW 1) and one Zile Singh (DW 2) visited the house of the
prosecutrix and made a complaint to her father the she had been
keeping bad company with some boys and asked her father to keep
an eye on her. This resulted in an altercation between them and
consequently the prosecutrix warned them that she would implicate
the appellant in a false case.
9. The Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly relying on the FSL report (Ext. P1), came to
the conclusion that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence
in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, and accordingly, the
appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year, for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. For the
offence punishable under Section 506, IPC the appellant was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
months. However, the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
4
10. Dealing with the appeal preferred by the accused, the Single
Judge of the High Court fully concurred with the order of the Trial
Court convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Before the
High Court, the accused claimed that on the date of incident he was
juvenile and hence he may be given the benefit of the provisions of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The
High Court, therefore, referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice
Board to find out whether on the day of incident, the appellant wasor
not. The High Court clarified that in case the Juvenile Justice Board
came to the conclusion that the appellant was a juvenile, he would be
dealt with those provisions, otherwise, he would undergo the
sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
11. The Juvenile Justice Board, Faridabad considered the case of
the accused appellant and reached to the conclusion that the
accused had failed to prove with proper documentary evidence that
he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence and accordingly declined
his plea to be a juvenile.
12. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court, the appellant approached this Court by this appeal.
5
This Court, while granting special leave to appeal on 3 rd September,
2012, directed the appellant to be released on bail.
13. Before us, it is strenuously contended by the counsel for the
appellant that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the defence
of the appellant who was falsely implicated in the case. An effort has
been made to satisfy this Court that there was strong motive of the
prosecutirx to implicate the appellant. It was on account of the
altercation that took place when the appellant party brought to the
notice of the father of prosecutrix about her illicit relationship with
some boys, the prosecutrix warned the appellant that she will take
revenge by implicating him in a false case. He also submitted that
the Courts below have erred in relying on the statement of prosecutrix
that the appellant pushed her twice, gagged her mouth and dragged
her holding both hands on the dry field of the Arhar and forcibly
committed rape. He submitted that when such a forcible assault is
committed on a girl, one would expect some sort of injury on any part
of her body, but the prosecution story is totally concocted as it is
unbelievable that in spite of all the alleged forcible rape, the victim did
not sustain any injury and it is evident from her Medical Report that
there was no external mark of injury anywhere on her body.
6
14. Learned counsel finally contended that there were several
anomalies and improvements in the evidence, no corroboration of
certain important statements of victim with the medical evidence and
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Despite all this, the Trial Court as well as the High Court went on
convicting and sentencing the appellant and hence the impugned
judgment has to be set aside.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent—State, on the other hand,
supported the views taken by the Courts below and submitted that
there is no iota of doubt in coming to the conclusion that the appellant
has committed the grievous offence, and he is rightly punished by the
Courts below.
16. The two grounds on which learned counsel for the appellant
laid stress to show that there is no offence committed by the accused
are (i) the medical evidence, and (ii) false implication by the
prosecutrix. To appreciate his contention, we have perused the
evidence of Dr. Meenu Kapoor—PW 8, who relying upon the report of
the Chemical Examiner (Ext. PJ) stated that human semen was
detected on the underwear of the victim. In addition to this, as per the
evidence of Dr. Sudhir Khurana, PW 2 (Ext. PA), there were bone
7
injuries on the right forearm, swelling and contusion both on the left
hand and right shoulder and abraded contusion of the right leg of the
accused. The Doctor opined that these injuries were caused within a
duration of 24 to 72 hours. All these injuries indubitably support the
version of the prosecutrix—victim who stated that in the scuffle, she
had bitten the accused. In addition to this, the Doctor—PW 2 also
stated that he found nothing which suggests that the accused could
not perform sexual intercourse. The further contention of the counsel
to rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is habitual of
sexual intercourse and there were no signs of recent forcible sexual
intercourse or injuries on her body, also cannot help. It is not
expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to
prove her case. The findings of the medical experts clearly
established that there was a rape committed against the victim.
The other ground taken by the counsel is that the prosecutrix
has falsely implicated the appellant as his father (DW 1) has
complained to her father that she was roaming around with the
company of some boys and hence she has threatened that she will
implicate the appellant falsely to take revenge for complaining against
her, but this plea has also no basis. To prove this fact, the counsel
8
has relied upon the only circumstance that after the arrest of the
accused, his father (DW 1) made a complaint to the Superintendent
of Police about the false implication of his son which was signed by
two villagers, namely, Mahender Lumberdar and mamchand Balmiki.
However, there is no corroborative evidence on record to establish
this fact and even the said two persons have not been examined.
17. A further submission made by the counsel for the appellant is
that after the alleged occurrence, the girl straightaway went to her
house and only thereafter she went to the police station to lodge the
complaint and hence the story of rape cannot be believed. We find
nothing unusual in this, one cannot expect every rape victim to
straightaway go to police station and lodge complaint.
18. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and on
appreciation of entire evidence, supported by the Doctors’ opinion
and chemical examination report, in our considered opinion, there is
nothing to disbelieve the prosecution story that the appellant had
committed the offences of rape and criminal intimidation. We,
therefore, find no error in the judgments and orders passed by the
Courts below and hence we see no reason to interfere.
9
19. The plea of the appellant being juvenile has not been raised
before this Court.
20. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
21. The appellant is on bail in view of this Court’s order dated 3 rd
September, 2012. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he shall
be taken into custody forthwith to serve remaining sentence.
…………………………………………J. (DIPAK MISRA)
………………………………………….J. (N.V. RAMANA)
NEW DELHI, MAY 16, 2014.
1