Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
7. The main argument on behalf of the appellant, while challenging the above findings, is that there is hardly any evidence directly involving the accused Prem Prakash @ Lillu in the commission of the crime. This argument does not impress us. Firstly, the prosecutrix when examined as PW4 stated in Court that the appellant was driving the car in which she was kidnapped and subsequently taken to the jungle. Her version is also supported by her father Pratap Singh, PW7, though, of course, Pratap Singh was not an eyewitness to the occurrence. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the version given by the prosecutrix. Some contradictions have been pointed out between the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court has rightly observed that these are some discrepancies which, viewed from any angle, are not significant. It is also on record that PW4 did deny some portion of her statement Ex.DA, particularly, that she was raped in the car one after the other by all the three accused. This statement does not find support from any of the prosecution witnesses or from the investigation of the Investigating Officer. Thus, this contradiction does not render the statement of the prosecutrix unreliable or untrustworthy.
8. Another important aspect of the case is that the accused Dharambir, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has not chosen to say that none of the other two accused, namely, the appellant herein and the deceased Prem G · Prakash, were present at the time of the occurrence or that they have been falsely implicated on account of some land dispute, as referred to by the other two accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
9. As per the medical evidence of PW5, Dr. A.K. Bhutani, PREM PRAKASH @ LILLU & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] "abrasions which were brownish in colour with clothes, blood on right shin anteriorly, clotted dry blood sticking from the abrasions described above (sic) 3 cm. below right knee joint" were found on the person of the prosecutrix. There was also abrasion on right side of cheek, 5 cm brownish in colour and the prosecutrix complained of pain on the right side of her neck. In her cross-examination, the duration of injury no.1 was stated to be more than 24 hours and it was also stated that the injury no.1 could be result of a fall while the injury no. 2 cannot be self inflicted. This medical evidence clearly shows that she had suffered injuries during the alleged incident and she was taken c for medical examination by the Investigating Officer after expiry of 24 hours. Dr.A.P. Sharma had examined the appellant- accused Herchand and found him fit to perform sexual intercourse.
10. The doctor also stated that she had conducted X-ray examination of Kumari Sudesh and according to report, Ex.PS, Sudesh was aged more than 18 years. After examining the forensic reports, Exs.PH and PJ, from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the doctor also stated that there was a possibility of intercourse having taken place with Sudesh on 25th July, 1990.
11. There are certain significant averments which show the manner in which the offence was committed. Firstly, she has stated that the car was being driven by Prem Prakash @ Lillu. Secondly, that she was wearing same clothes at the time of her medical examination which she was wearing at the time of rape. Her salwar was blood-stained. These clothes were taken into custody by the doctor herself, who subsequently handed over the same to the investigating agency. Similarly, the father of the prosecutrix, PW7, has specifically stated that his daughter had told him that Dharambir had caught hold of her and dragged her to the car, her mouth was gagged by Poley and still there was another person with small pox marks on his face who was driving the car. About the identity of Lillu @ Prem Prakash, it A is clear that PW? had known him for the last 10 years as he had settled in the Village. In other words, there could hardly be any dispute with regard to the identity of the person accused. But for the contribution made by the present accused, who was driving the car and had taken away the prosecutrix to the jungle/ B fields, probably the incident could have been avoided. Thus, it is clear that involvement of the present accused in the entire chain of events was material and as per the prosecutrix he had also raped her. According to the doctor, he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. This entire evidence and the c attendant circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had placed emphasis on the fact that the doctor had opined· that the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse and that there was no sign of fresh intercourse. This argument has rightly D been rejected by the High Court by noticing that there was no fresh intercourse but she had been subjected to intercourse more than 24 hours ago. The doctor had examined her on 27th July, 1990 while the incident took place on 25th July, 199'0. Thus, the statement of the doctor has to be read and understood E in that background and the doctor also specifically stated, that there was a possibility that she was subjected to intercourse on 25th July, 1990.
13. The evidence, essentially, must be viewed collectively. F The statement of a witness must be read as a whole. Reliance on a mere line in the statement of the witness, out of context, would not serve the ends of justice and the conclusion of the Court based on such appreciation of evidence could be faulted. Another aspect of this case which has specifically not been G noticed by the High Court, is that the prosecutrix and her father were made to run from pillar to post by the police authorities, before their case could be registered. The prosecutrix, PW4, has specifically stated that report made by her father was not recorded by the police and the next day they went to Jhajjar H along with her mother and appeared before the police officers PREM PRAKASH@ LILLU & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.] but again, no action was taken. According to her, the application which she had given in the Tehsil office was thumb marked by her.
Pratap Singh, father of the prosecutrix, stated that he had even convened a panchayat of the brotherhood but the panchayat having failed to arrive at a decision, he had proceeded to the police station along with his daughter and his report was not recorded at the police station by the police. He returned to the village and again went to the Jhajjar Sub Divisions Headquarter and met the DSP and narrated the entire occurrence to him. But still no action was taken and then they claim to have gone to the SOM, Jhajjar and made a c complaint in writing. Thereafter, his daughter was medically examined and subsequently, the case was registered. This event certainly describes and points towards the apathy in the functioning of investigating agencies in heinous crimes, to which the complainant was subjected. In terms of the provisions of Section 154, Cr.P .C., it is obligatory for the police to register a case when the facts constituting a cognizable offence are brought to its notice.
The father of the girl, surely must have felt trauma and frustration when he was subjected to the above treatment, besides the knowledge of his daughter's raped by the accused. We do express a pious hope, that such occurrences will not be repeated in any police station in the country.
14. The counsel for the appellant had also tried to rely upon some contradictions and embellishments in the statements of the prosecutrix and her father. Reference was made to exhibits 01 and PO in this regard. The Court cannot ignore the fact that the prosecutrix cannot be expected to make a perfect statement after a lapse of time without even a normal variance. Furthermore, she had specifically stated that, the statements recorded by the appellants were not read over to her nor were any thumb impressions taken for the same. In fact, she had given an application to the tehsil office which was thumb marked and even that complaint had not been produced in [2011) 10 S.C.R. evidence before the Court by the prosecution. These are the lacunae and impropriety committed by the investigating agency itself. Thus, no burden or fault could be shifted to the prosecutrix. Her statement before the Court is fully .supported by other prosecution witnesses and even the -medical evidence produced on record. There is a concurrent finding of convietion against the accused, which is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. We see no reason to interfere.
15. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. c 8.8.8. Appeal dismissed.