KRISHANversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                           [2014] 7 S.C.R. 552


    A
                                KRIS HAN
                                  v.
                          STATE OF HARYANA
                                                 .
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2012)
    8                         MAY 16, 2014
                [DIPAK MISRA. AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]

           Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376 and 506 - Rape and
    c criminal intimidation - Commission of, by the appellant on
      the prosecutrix - Conviction and sentence ulss. 376 and 506
      by the courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for
      - Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, on
      appreciation of entire evidence, supported by the doctors'
·   o opinion and chemical examination report, the prosecution
      case that the appellant committed the offences of rape and
      criminal intimidation cannot be doubted.

          The prosecution case was that on the fateful day the
    E appellant committed r·ape on the prosecutrix-victim.
      Investigation was carried out. The trial court convicted
      the appellant for offences punishable under sections 376'
      and 506 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The High Court
      upheld the order passe!d by the trial court. Hence, the
    F instant appeal.

            Dismissing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: 1.1. Taking into consideration the totality of
       circumstances and on appreciation of entire evidence,
    G .supported by the Doctors' opinion and chemical
       examination report, there is nothing to disbelieve the
       prosecution story that the appellant had committed the
       offences of rape and criminal intimidation. There is no
       error in the judgments and orders passed by the Courts
    H.                           552
          KRISHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA                    553


below and thus, there is no reason to interfere. [Para 18]      A
[559-G-H; 560-A]

       1.2. PW 8-doctor relying upon the report of the
  Chemical· Examiner stated that human semen was
  detected on the underwear of the victim. PW 2-doctor          8
  stated that there were bone 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         C
  injuries indubitably support the version of the
  prosecutrix-victim who stated that in the scuffle, she had
· bitten the accused. In addition to this, PW 2 also stated
  that he found nothing which suggests that the accused
, could not perform sexual intercourse. The contention to       0
  rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is
  habitual of sexual intercourse and there were n.o 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         E
  case; The findings of the· medical experts clearly
  established that thE!re was a rape committed against the
  victim. [Para 16] [558-F-H; 559-A-B]
     1.3. The other ground that the prosecutrix falsely
implicated the appellant as his father (DW 1) had               F
complained to her fath~r that she was roaming around
with the company of some boys and thus, she threatened
that she wm implicate the appellant falsely to take revenge
for complaining against her, has no basis. To prove this
fact, the counsel relied upon the only circumstance that        G
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.
However, there was no corroborative evidence on record
                                                                H
    554      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A to establish this fact and even the said two persons were
  not examined. [Para 16] [559-C-E]
          1.4. The submission that after the alleged occurrence,
  the girl straightaway went to her house and only
  thereafter, she went to the police station to lodge the
8
  complaint and thus, the story of rape cannot be believed,
  cannot be accepted. One cannot expect every rape victim
  to straightaway go to police station and lodge complaint.
  [Para 17]. [559-F]

C       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1342 of 2012.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2011 in CRA
    No. 687-SB of 2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
o   at Chandigarh.

       Sunil Verma, P.V. Raghunandan and Rameshwar Prasad
    Goyal for the Appellant.

       Manjit Singh, AAG, Vikas Sharma and Naresh Bakshi for
E the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. This appeal arises out of Judgment
    and order dated 3rd March, 2011 of the High Court of Punjab
F   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
G instance of the prosecutrix (PW-10) an F.l.R. dated 6th October,
    2001 was lodged at the Police Station Old Faridabad, Haryana
    against the appellant invoking Sections 376 and 50~, IPC.
    According to the prosecution story, on 6th October, 2011 while.
    the prosecutrix (PW 10) was on her way carrying meals for her
H . parents who were working in the fields, the appellant
           KRISHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA                        555
                 [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
approached her from behind when she was going on the road            A
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.                                    B

    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               c
examined. After recording the statement of prosecutrix under
Section 164, Cr.P.C., the case property was sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Kamal and the case was
committed to the Court of Session. Subsequently, charges
under Sections 376 and 506, IPC were framed against the              D
accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

     4. While the prosecution in all examined as many as 12
witnesses to substantiate its allegations against the accused,
there were two defence witnesses.
                                                                     E
     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           F
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           G
injuries on the right forearm, left hand, right should~r 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,      H
     556      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A    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
8    she had developed personal grudge against him because he
     along with his fathe((DVV 1) and one Zile Singh (OW 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
c,   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.
D
  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
E 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/
F -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
  However, the substantive sentences were directed to run
  concurrently.

       10. Dealing with the appeal preferred by the accused, the
  Single Judge of the High Court fully concurred with the order
G 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,
H
            KRISHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA                         557
                  [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
  referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to find out        A
  whether on the day of incident, the appellant was juvenile or not.
  The High Court clarified that in case the Juvenile Justice Board
 .came to the conclusion that the appellant was a juvenile, he
,1would be dealt with those provisions, otherwise, he would
· undergo the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.                     B

      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         C
 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. This Court, wl<lile granting special leave to
 appeal on 3rd September, 2012, directed the appellant to be           D
 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       E
  case. An effort has been made to satisfy this Court that there
  was strong motive of the prosecutrix 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       F
  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 lhe dry field of the Arhar and forcibly    G
  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
                                                                       H
   558      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A 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.

         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
C 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
D 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 coun~el for the
    appellant laid stress to show that there is no offence committed
E 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
F the victim. In addition to this, as per the evidence of Dr. Sudhir
    Khurana, PW 2 (E;<t. PA), there were bone 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 al
G duration of 24 to 72 hours. All these injuries indubitably support
    the version of the prosec:utrix-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
H
            KRISHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA                       559
                  [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

further contention of the counsel to rule out rape by the accused,   A
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       B
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            c
 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 has relied upon the only
 circumstance that after the arrest of the accused, his father       D
 (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       E
 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
                                                                     F
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      G
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
                                                                     H
   660           SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A 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.
       19. The plea of the appellant being juvenile has not been
B 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 3rd September, 2012. His bail bonds shall stand
C cancelled and he.shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve
  remaining sentence.

    Nidhi Jain                                    Appeal dismissed. I