LexGURCHARAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H GURCHAR,AN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA September 13, 1972 [A. N. RAY AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 197 Indian Pental Code (Act 45 of 1860). •'-362. 366 and 376--Girl iinder 16 years forced to go to a place where rape was committed on Tw- Effect of absence of marks of violence or person of victim. Practice-Sexual ofjence-Necessitv for corroboration. · A girl under 16 years was induced to go to a particular house from where she was threatened to go to the boll5C of the appellant who forcibly took her to his fields outside the village and committed rape on her. The appellant was convicted for offences under ss. 366 and 376 I.P.C. The medical evidence showed that there was penetration but no marks of violence on the victim's person. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : (I) The gravamen of the offence was that the appellant forc- ed the girl to go with him to the fields to commit rape on her and this constitutes abduction punishable under s. 362 and 366, I.P.C. There is no question of any kidnapping from lawful guarJianship or the appellant taking or enticing her out of the keeping of her lawful guardian or hter taking her away for illicit purpose from unlawful custody. [201A-E] State v. Gopicfra11d, A.J.R. 1961 Born. 282, held inapplicable. (2) Under s. 375, J.P.C. read with the Explanation, where a p<rs0n on whom rape is committed is under 16 years of age, her consent is im· material and penetration is sufficient to con~itute the offence. In the pre- sent case, mere absence of marks di violence on the peJSOn of the victim is immaterial because, that would merely suggest want of voilent resistance on her part which is wholly inconsequential since she is under 16 y.ear; of age. [201 G-HJ (3) In cases of sexual offences the prosecutrix is not considered "" an accomplice and her testimony is not equated with that of an accomplice . in an offence. It is only as a role of prudence that courts normally look for some corroboration of her testimony so as to satisfy their conscience that she is telling the truth and that the person accused of rape cm bee is not being falsely implicated. [202G-H] In the present cas~. the testimony of the victim by itself is impressive enough to render it safe for sustaining the appellant's conviction. More- over, t!'e rescue of the victim from the appellant's sugarcane field, her complamt soon thereafter to the prosecution witnesses about the abduction and the rape, the later recovery of S()me broke11 pieces of bangles from the scene of occurrence, and the medical evidence, fully corroborate testi- money. [205 A· DJ Rameslnvar v. State of Rajasthan, [1952], S.C.R. 177 ancl S,dhuwar Ga11g111/y \.State of West Bengal, A.1.R. 1958 S.C. 143 followed. Janarda11 Tewari v. State of Bihar, [1971] 3 S.C.C. 927 referred tc. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Cr. A. No. ' 232 of 1969. 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 2 S.C.R. . .\ppeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated NoYember 28, 1968 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Ch1ndigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 1968. Bal Raj Trika, N. S. Das Behl and Sat Pal Arora, for the appellant. Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J. This is an appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The appellant Gurcharan Singh, his ser- vant Shri Sanjha Ram. Dalip Singh. his wife Smt. Surjit Kaur •m'.l und~r the latter section to rigorous imprisonment for four Ses,ions Judge. Kamal on charges under ss. 366, 368 and 376, Indian Penal Code. Gurcharan Singh. appellant. with whom :lione we are concerned in this appeal was charged with commis- sic'n of offences under ss. 366 and 376. J.P.C. The trial court acquitted Phullan and Surjit Kaur but convicted Gurcharan Singh. appellant. under ss. 366 and 376. I.P.C. sentencing him under the former section to rigorous imp1isonment for three years •:nd under the latter section to rigorous imprisonment for four ye,1r; and fine of Rs. 200. with further rigorous imprisonment for six months in the event of default in payment of fine. The subs- tantiYc sentences were to run concurrently. Sanjha Ram was conYicted under s. 376. I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous impri- sonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 200, with further rigo- rous imprisonment for si:: months ~n case of default in payment c.i rine. He was also convicted under s. 368, I.P.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.