K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.
1. The appellant, Ram Pal (original accused 4) a Head Constable was tried along with seven others for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The trial court convicted him under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 200, in default of payment of which to further undergo RI for two months. The other five were also convicted by the trial court. Two co-accused namely Lakhmi Chand, Head Constable and Balwan Singh, Constable were acquitted by the trial court. The convicted accused preferred appeals to the High Court and the same were dismissed by the High Court.
2. The prosecution case is that prosecutrix PW 3, a married woman aged about 20 years was residing at Ellenabad. On August 15, 1981 i.e. on Rakhi day, she went to Sirsa from her village to tie Rakhi to her brother PW 10 but he was not there. She thought of going back to her village. On the way three of the accused met her whom she knew. She was taken to various places and according to her version she was raped during the night. She was confined in a room and according to her version three Police Officials including the appellant came into the room and committed rape upon her. Next day on August 16, 1991 at about 5 p.m. she was taken to the house of one of the accused and there again she was raped and at about midnight she was recovered from the house of Dhanna, one of the accused. Her statement was recorded and she was sent for medical examination. As she was habituated to sexual intercourse, the Doctor did not find any visible injuries. The swabs and ghagra were found to be stained with human semen. The accused were arrested. The appellant along with two other Police Officials were alleged to have participated in the rape and they were put on identification parade which was held before the Executive Magistrate and the prosecutrix identified the appellant as one who committed rape on her at that time. On the basis of her evidence as well as relying on the identification parade the trial court convicted the appellant as well as others and the same was confirmed by the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case rests mainly on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the identification parade held before the Executive Magistrate was irregular and that the accused were shown to the prosecutrix. It is also his submission that because of some misunderstandings between the appellant and the higher officials the case has been filed against him. Learned counsel has also taken us through the evidence of PW 3, prosecutrix and also the evidence of the other witnesses and some of the findings given by the trial court as well as by the High Court. On a perusal of the evidence of PW 3 it is clearly established that she has clearly identified the appellant as one of the rapists. The accused has no doubt in his statement under Section 313 CrPC stated that he was known to the prosecutrix and was also falsely implicated. This bare denial cannot be of any consequence. It is the evidence of the prosecutrix, PW 3 that is most important. We have gone through her evidence and her version appears to be natural and as a matter of fact she did not even identify the other two Police Officials in the identification parade. So far as the appellant is concerned she has identified him in the identification parade and both the courts have accepted her evidence. We see no reasons to come to a different conclusion. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail, he shall surrender and serve out the remaining period of sentence.