Judgment:
Jaya Roy, J.
This criminal appeal is against the Judgment dated 23.4.2001 passed by Sri Narendra Kumar Shrivastava, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 1999/19 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for ten years and further directed to pay a fine of rupees five thousand (5,000/-) by way of compensation within three months from the date of this judgment and default of making payment of fine, further sentenced of R.I. for a period of two years which will run consecutively.
2. In short the prosecution case is that the informant Lalita Devi wife of Sri Bijay Rana of village Khuntabad, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih, on 11.2.99 at about 6.30 A.M. stated before the Officer-in-charge of Bengabad Police Station that on 22.1.1999, her mother-in-law had gone for Saraswati Puja and her father-in-law also went to the relation's house and the informant was alone in her house. In the meantime, Karu Yadav (appellant) was grazing his cattle in his field near the house of the informant. At about 4.P.M., Karu Yadav came to the informant and demanded drinking water from her. When the informant had gone inside of her house to bring water then Karu Yadav entered into her house and caught hold the informant forcibly and on the point of the dragger committed rape with her against her Will. Thereafter, he fled away. It is further stated that at about 5.P.M. mother-in-law returned to her house then the informant narrated the entire incidence to her. The mother-in-law of the informant told the same to the villagers and also to the guardian of Karu Yadav. After two days of the said occurrence, the father-in-law of the informant returned back from his relation's house then he was also informed about the same. The father-in-law of the informant also told the villagers and to the guardian of Karu Yadav. The villagers told the father-in-law of the informant that matter will be decided by a Panchayat and further restrained the informant and her family members not to inform this matter to the police. But the villagers and guardian of the Karu Yadav deferred the Panchayati one or other plea for several times. Then the father-in-law of the informant informed Adabasi society of village Junglepura and given written report for deciding the matter. On 10.2.99 at about 7.00 A.M... when Karu Yadav was working in his field near the house of the informant then four Aadiwasi of village- Junglepura came there and brought Karu Yadav before the Panchayati of Aadiwasi Society. Informant also went to the Adiwasi Panchayati along with her guardian but guardian of Karu Yadav did not come to the Adawasi Panchayati inspite of repeated calls. But Karu Yadav confessed his guilt before the Aadiwasi Panchayat and thereafter fled away from the Aadiwasi Panchayati. On the basis of this information, a case has been registered under Sections 448, 341 and 376 I.P.C. against Karu Yadav. After investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 I.P.C. only. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. The accused person has pleaded not guilty and said about his false implication in this case due to previous enmity and further defence is that to grab his land measuring one acre which is near the house of the informant. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case amongst them. P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are declared hostile. P.W. 4 is mothers-in-law, P.W.5 is father-in-law of the informant and P.W.6 is informant herself and P.W.7 is I.O. of this case.
4. P.W.4 is mother-in-law of the informant. She has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence she has gone to see Saraswati Puja and when she returned back at about 5 P.M., she sow her daughter-in-law, Lalita Devi (victim) was alone in her house. As soon as she returned back, her daughter-in-law narrated the entire aforesaid occurrence and told her that Karu Yadav at 4.P.M. came to her and told her to bring water and as soon as she entered into the house to bring water, then Karu Yadav followed her and forcibly put Sari in her mouth and on the point of dragger committed rape on her against her will. P.W.4 further deposed that as soon as she came to know about this, she went to the mother of Karu Yadav and told her the entire occurrence. In this way the P.W.4 has corroborated and supports the prosecution case. This witness was cross-examined at length by the defence but she has stood the test of cross-examination.
5. P.W.5 is father-in-law of the victim lady (P.W.6). He has fully supported the prosecution case and in his cross-examination by the defence this witness has stood the test of cross-examination.
6. P.W.7 is the I.O. who has deposed that when he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Bengabad Police Station on 10.2.99 at about 5.30 P.M. the elder brother of the accused Karu Yadav came to the police station and given a written report that his younger brother Karo Yadav (appellant) was kidnapped by some unknown person along with Churamau Rana of Khutaband (P.W.5) on 10.2.99. He lodged the Sanha and to verify the matter went to the village Khuta Band. During the course of enquiry he came to know that on 22.1.99 the accused Karu Yadav committed rape on P.W.6 namely Lalita Devi daughter-in-law of Churaman Rana and to save his brother this false Sanha was lodged against Churman Rana. He has further deposed that Churmana Rana gave a written report to Adibasi Society and when the family members of Karu Yadav did not come in the Panchayati only then the victim lady having no option but to inform the police. Thus, the P.W.7 has fully supported the prosecution case.
7. The learned Counsel of the appellant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged after 20 days of the alleged occurrence and no sufficient reason has been given for the same. Further more the victim lady has not been examined by the Doctor.
8. In my view, the victim lady in her furdbeyan has given sufficient reason for the aforesaid delay as she stated that she and her family member reported the matter firstly to the village Panchayat but as one or other plea the villagers and family member of Karu Yadav deferred the Panchayati then they informed Adibasi Society of village Junglepura and submitted a written report for deciding the matter. Thereafter Panchayati of Adibasi Society was held and Karu Yadav confessed his guilt before the Adibasi Panchayat and thereafter he fled away. The informant having no way other then to inform the police and accordingly she lodged the instant case against the appellant. Thus, I find that the delay has been explained properly by the informant (victim lady) and same was supported by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 also.
9. I find from the evidence of P.W.7 (in Para 16 of his cross-examination) when attention drawn by the defence that why he has not seized the clothes of the victim lady and refer the victim lady for medical examination then this witness frankly deposed that became 20 days has elapsed from the date of occurrence so he thought there was no reed of medical checkup as because in 20 days injury of victim lady, if any, will heal up and no sign of rape can be found by the Doctor after lapse of 20 days.
10. The learned Counsel further submits that P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are declared hostile by the prosecution and the learned trial court convicted the appellant only on the basis of evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, and 6 who are wholly interested witnesses. But I find from the evidence of the P.W.7 I.O. who has deposed that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 fully supported the prosecution case before him under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
11. Lastly the learned Counsel of the appellant submits that the appellant is convicted for the first time and he was only 20 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and he was in custody for more than 4 years. So keeping in mind his young age, lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence.
12. It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the Prosecutrix only, if evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is trust worthy. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in few cases that the evidence of prosecutrix should not be even rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies. After scrutinizing the evidence of the parties and after hearing both the parties at length, I find that the victim lady, the prosecutrix has fully established and proved her case and the other witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 have also supported the prosecution case.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellant, Karu Yadav beyond all reasonable doubt for conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, Karu Yadav under Section 376 I.P.C. is upheld.
14. Now remains the question of sentence as the appellant was only 20 years old at the time of the occurrence and he is an illiterate villager and for the first time, he is involved and convicted in a Criminal Case. According to my opinion, if he remains in jail custody long time, again he will mix well with the hardened criminals and he will turn into veteran criminal after his release from the jail. Therefore, to save a young man from turning into a hardened criminal due to bad company in jail and further more, to disturb and ruin his entire family, his wife and his children having no fault on their part, as he is now a family man and only earning member of his family, it will not be just and proper to send him again in jail custody for a long time.
Considering the age of the appellant and he being convicted for the first time and taking into consideration the period he was in custody and considering and taking over all view of the matter he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-by way of compensation and after realizing the fine (if it is not deposited by now), same to be paid to the victim lady within three months from the date of this judgment and in default in payment of fine, the appellant, Karu Yadav has to undergo further R.I. for a period of one year.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the court below concerned immediately to serve out the sentence passed against him. It goes without saying that the period of sentence already undergone by the accused-appellant, will be set off.