STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAM NARAIN AND ORS.

A                           STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                     v.
                            RAM NARAIN AND ORS.

                                JANUARY 23, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMED AND
                         G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

          Penal Code. 1860 :
                                                                                      ..
           Sections 342, 361, 366, 376-Minor girl-Wrongful confinement and
C   rape-Trial--All three accused convicted and sentenced-High Court reducing
    their sentence to the period undergone-On appea~ held victim being minor,
    question of consent does not arise-Rape by first accused proved-Also not
    falsely implicating the accused as the victim alleged rape by first accused
    alone-Judgment of High Court set aside-Conviction of first accused
D   upheld-Sentenced to five years' r.i. u/s. 376 and fine of Rs. 2, 000 to be paid
    to the victim-All three accused sentence ta five years' imprisonment under
    S. 366 and one year under S. 342.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    189 of 1996.
E
         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.91 of the Rajasthan High
    Court in S.B. Cr!. A. No. 351 of 1984.

          K.S. Bhati for the Appellant.

F         Sushi! Kumar Jain for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

          Heard learned counsel on both side.
G
        It is rather curious that the learned judge while confirming the
  conviction of the three respondents, viz., Ram Narain, Bajrang Lal and
  Manja Ram, for offences under Sections 376, 366 and 342, Indian Penal
  Code ["!PC", for short) in respect of Ram Narain under Sections 366 and
H 342, IPC in respect of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, reduced their sentence to
                                          874
                            STATEv. RAM NARAIN                            875

    the period already undergone, viz., one and a half months. Notice was       A
"   issued by this Court against the reduction of the sentence by the High
    Court.

          The facts are that on August 14, 1983 when victim Anoop Devi aged
    between 15 and 17 years was coming from the house of her uncle to her
    parents' house, these accused enticed her to believe that all the women-folk B
    had assembled at the outskirts of the village to go to Circus and induced
    her to accompany them. Innocently believing their statement, she accom-
    panied them to the outskirts but did not find women-folk there. She was
    taken at knife point to another village by name Siroha and from there to
    Jaipur in a truck. In Jaipur, she was wrongfully confined in a house. From C
    Jaipur, she was taken to Murtipura where first accused-respondent had
    sexual intercourse with her. She was wrongfully confmed in that house.
    From there she was brought back to her village and was confined in the
    house of the first accused. On coming to know of it, the father of the victim .
    [PW 3] made a complaint to the police and the police recovered her from D
    the house of the first accused.

           At the trial, five witnesses, viz., the victim (PW 1], her mother and
    father (PWs 2 and 3) and neighbours (PWs 4 and 5) were examined. The
    Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence and believing the evidence
    of PW 1, the victim, her mother and father (PWs 2 and 3) an,d neighbours E
    [PWs 4 and 5], convicted the first accused for offence under Sections 376,
    366 and 342 !PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven
    years, five years and one year respectively and also imposed fine of Rs. 200.
    Equally, the second and third accused were convicted under Sections 366
    and 342, !PC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and F
    one year respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
    The accused-respondents c~rried the matter in appeal and the learned
    Judge had held that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that the
    prosecution has established its case without any room for doubt. However,
    he reduced the sentence and allowed the appeal. He observed that the age
    of first accused, viz., 18 years, and the sentence of one and a half months G
    which he had already undergone, would be sufficient to meet the ends of
    justice. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that justice would be met in
    case th~ sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by them.

         Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain, the learned· counsel for the respondents H
    876                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1996) 1 S.C.R.

A contended that looking at the evidence of the victim herself, the High Court
   was justified in reducing the sentence. She is a consenting party and
   without independent corroboration, her evidence would be suspect and
   could not be relied upon. The offence had taken place on April 14, 1983
   and the report was lodged by the father of the victim on May 13, 1983, i.e.,
B one month after the incident. It is unlikely that had she not been the
   consenting party, report would have been lodged immediately after abduc-
   tion. PW 3 having allowed the daughter to remain in the company of the          ..
   first accused for one month and parents having taking no action, the             •
   conduct would indicate against the prosecution and that the respondents
C had no intention to commit any offence and the victim {PW 1) is a
   consenting party. We fail to appreciate the stand of the victim which is
   proved from the evidence of the doetor [PW 5] that she is minor aged
   between 15 and 17 years. She is an innocent village girl. From her evidence,
   we find intrinsic truth, and her to be a truthful witness. No corroboration
D to her evidence is needed. The Court is required in each case to consider
   whether the evidence of the prosecution inspires confidence for accep-
    tance. Each case has to be considered in its own setting, facts and cir-
   cumstances. In fact, had PW 1 an intention to falsely implicate all the
   accused, nothing prevented her to state that the second and third accused
    also had intercourse with her. The learned Sessions Judge was greatly
E impressed by her frankness when she attributed the act of sexual inter-
    course only to the first accused and none else. When she was induced to
    accompany them to a Circus along with women-folk she came to the
    outskirts of the village and when she found none, she was frightened at
    knife point at her throat and from the outskirts of the village the three
F accused took her to different places. It would be difficult for an innocent
    girl to resist three persons who took her from place to place and she could
    not have attempted to escape from their clutches nor could she give any
  . report to anybody. Naturally, under the circumstances she had reconciled
    herself and given up to her fate and remained in their wrongful custody for
G more than one month. Her evidence clearly indicates that she was wrong-
    fully confined at different places. Even after she was brought to the native
    place she was also wrongfully confined in the house of first accused. Thus
    the evidence brings home the guilt of offences under Sections 364, 361 and
    also wrongful confinement under Section 342. As regards offence under
H Section 376, her evidence is sufficient. That apart, we also get corrobora-
                         STATEv. RAM NARAIN                              877

tion from the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence, viz., the       A
underwear of the first accused and peticot of the victim establish the sexual
intercourse the first accused had with the victim. The victim being a minor,
the question of her consent does not arise and, therefore, the contention
of Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain that she was a consenting party is absolutely
unbelievable and untenable. Obviously, under the circumstances, she had         B
reconciled herself and to her fate and the first accused had sexual inter-
course and the offence under Section 376, !PC as against him is proved.

       The question is : whether the High Court is right in reducing the
sentence to the period already undergone, i.e., one and a half month ? We
think that the High Court has committed grave error of law in reducing C
the sentence. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The
conviction of the first accused is upheld and he is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 376. Equally, all the three
accused are convicted under Section 366 to undergo sentence of five years
under Section 366 and one year under Section 342, !PC. In addition the D
first accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and if the same is paid,
it is directed to be paid to the minor victim. In default, he should undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The second and third respondent-ac-
cused are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each in addition to the
conviction under Section 366. In default, they should undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month. All sentences would run· concurrently. The E
fine, if paid, is directed to be paid to the vict~.

       The appeal is accordingly allowed.

G.N.                                                        Appeal allowed.