JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. The trial court handed down a verdict of guilty against the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 376 IPC, wherein a child aged about five years was ravished. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal was filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is this. On 21.12.1998 Shatrughan Sharma returned to his jhuggi and found that his daughter Lalita aged about five years was not present in the jhuggi. He went in search of his daughter. He found that his neighbour, Uma Shankar, was bringing his daughter out of accused’s jhuggi. Shatrughan Sharma found blood stains on her underwear. Uma Shankar bolted the door but did not came out when he was asked to do so. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and accused/appellant was arrested for the offence of rape. The prosecutrix, her father and Janki Devi, her grand mother have supported the prosecution case down the line. The prosecution examined 11 PWs in all.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the present case is an outlandish mishmash of bewildering contradictions and infirmities. She pointed out that Dr. Poonam Lal made the following deposition. Doctor deposed that on local examination a pad was found tied on her vulva which was soaked with blood. The prosecutrix did not allow the Doctor to touch her until she was administered anesthesia. The patient remained admitted in the hospital for about six-seven days. Initially the child was taken to some local practitioner who gave her some injection TT and referred the matter to the police. On the other hand, Shatrughan Sharma, father of the prosecutrix stated that he took his daughter to Bhalla Nursing Home at about 9.30 PM. He did not state that she was given TT injection. However, no effort was made on behalf of the appellant to get clarification on this point during cross-examination of this witness. To my view there is no incongruity at all.
4. Secondly, PW2 stated that his daughter was unconscious. She gained consciousness after two days. However, Doctor stated that she was not unconscious but she was brought under control with the administration of anesthesia.
5. Thirdly, in his cross-examination, Shatrughan Sharma stated that accused/appellant had brought out Lalita from her room and bolted his room. However, in his cross-examination, he explained that he did not see Uma Shankar bringing out her daughter from his room. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that statements of the neighbours were not recorded though they were available on the spot.
6. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant lack conviction. These are minor, small and insignificant contradictions. It must be borne in mind that human memory is vicissitudinary. Small contradictions are likely to happen after the lapse of this much time. It must be borne in mind that in this country many people are fond of drawing a long bow as Shatrughan Sharma deposed that his daughter remained unconscious for two days. No significance is to be attached with such like exaggerations. It must be recalled that his daughter was raped and therefore his endevour would be not to leave any stone unturned to see that the culprit stands adequately punished. In State of Maharashtra v. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldeep Singh Anand and Co. 2004 VIII A.D. 381 S.C it was held that there may be some exaggeration of the version of the incident by the complainant as she said that she was given hundred blows. Such exaggeration does not falsify the happening of the alleged incident. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram 2005 X A.D. S.C 255 the accused was senteneced to life imprisonment for raping his own five years daughter. It was held that minor or insignificant discrepancies should be ignored. In Surendera Singh v. State of Haryana , it was held that it is well settled principle of Law that every discrepancy in the witness cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity.
7. It is well settled that corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case(see Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan and Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan ). However, in the instant case there is sufficient corroboration. The non-joining of neighbours in the array of prosecution witnesses does not whittle down the value of the prosecution case.
8. It must be borne in mind that statement of prosecutrix PW5 is without any flaw. It is pertinent to note that the accused tried to act smartly when he appeared in the witness box. He had put his cap on his head. Initially, the prosecutrix testified that she did not know the accused. However, the Court ordered the accused to remove his cap. The prosecutrix immediately recognised him and shouted ‘ganja’. She informed the Court clearly, specifically and unequivocally that accused took her to his jhuggi and gave her peanuts to eat. She deposed that he shut her mouth with the cloth and raped her after closing the door. In her cross-examination, she stated that there was electricity in the jhuggi. She stated that she went out from the jhuggi alone and came back to her house alone. She stated that she was not tutored by her father. She denied that the accused was shown to her by her father on the day when she made this deposition. It is, therefore, clear that she was cross-examined at length but nothing could faze her. Learned Counsel for the appellant failed to point out even a single infirmity in her statement. The witness has an aroma of confidence. To say that she is an reliable and honest witness is no exaggeration.
9. Secondly, accused was examined by Dr. Sudheer Gupta, CMO, DDU Hospital on 21.12.1998. He stated that he took the under garments of the accused, his semen was collected and it was also sealed. Mahender Singh, SI PW10 stated that Constable Daya Singh had handed over to him two sealed packets containing underwear and semen of accused duly sealed with the seal of CMO, DDU Hospital and a sample seal. The report of CFSL is that underwears of the accused as well as prosecutrix bore human blood of AB group. Underwear also bore semen stains of AB group but semen sample was putrefied and therefore, no decision could be given. This document is of utmost importance. It clearly goes to depict that the accused was involved in this incident. This document sufficiently corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix.
10. Thirdly, it must be borne in mind that, although, the father of the prosecutrix Shatrughan Sharma may not be present at the time when the prosecutrix came out of the accused’s jhuggi, yet, the accused was arrested within two hours of the incident. Accused also resides in the neighborhood of the prosecutrix. The accused/appellant has alleged that Shatrughan Sharma was having inimical relations with the accused but he has failed to prove the same. It is interesting to note that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that underwear Ex.P2 belongs to him. He, however, denied knowledge about the reports of FSL Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E. He has failed to explain as to why blood and semen were found on his underwear. The accused explained in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Shatrughan Sharma, father of the prosecutrix wanted to take unauthorized possession of his jhuggi. Such like stories can be created at any time. Without sound evidence no argument will cohere. The learned Counsel for the appellant herself did not press this point.
11. Consequently, I find that no tangible grounds for suspicion exist. The case against the accused stands fully proved. The appeal has no merit. The same is therefore dismissed.