| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 120-B, 376 r/w. 109, 376(2)(c), 354, 302, 302 r/w. 34, 343, 506 C Part-II, 312, 304 and 201 r/w. 304-Allegation of rape of 13 girls on several occasions and murder of one person-By Swami in Ashram-:-Prosecutrix entirely dependent on the accused-Accused abetted and supported by other accused-Initiation of prosecution after a news item followed by the complaint of one of the prosecutrix~Evidence of all the prosecutrix, incriminating the accused-Evidence supported by medical evidence and other contemporaneous documents-Murder proved by evidence of eye-witnesses-DNA test proving the accused and one of the prosecutrix to be parents of a dead foetus-Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment by Courts below-On appeal, held: In the facts of the case conviction and sentence justified-This is a rarest. of rare cases. Section 3 75-Rape-Charge of-Consent of prosecutrix taken by deceitful manner and under threat-Held: The charge of rape would fall within the definition of the Section-Consent obtained by deceitful means and under threat is no consent. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 31-Sentences of life imprisonment-Direction by trial Court to run consecutively-Validity of-Held: Direction of consecutive sentence of life imprisonment is valid-The term 'imprisonment' occurring in Section 31 would include sentence of life imprisonment- Sentencing. Section 160-Examination of prosecutrix in the Police Station-After removing them from the place of occurrence i.e. from the clutches of accused-Held: Such examination not violative of the Section-The provision should be understood in the context of the situation that the prosectrix were removed from the place of occurrence for their safety and serve the interest of Justice. Sections 218, 464 and 465-Violation of provision under Section 218- Curability of-Held Violation of the provision under Section 218 is not an illegality, but is misjoinder of charges, an irregularity-Hence curable u/ss. 464 and 465 provided no failure of justice had occasioned thereby. Criminal Trial : Evidence of Prosecutrix-Evidentiary value of-Heid: Evidence of prosecutrix, if inspires confidence, conviction can be founded : In her testimony alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration-Her evidence is more reliable than that of injured witness-Minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies in her statement should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The allegation was that Accused- 1 a Swami in the Ashram, systematically abetted by A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7 and 'D' the absconded accused had raped 13 Ashram girls PWs 3 to 15 and PW-55, on several occasions. Most of the victim girls except PWs 4 and 6 were orphans brought from Sri Lanka. They were entirely dependent on A-1. A-1 had control over the prosecutrix physically, mentally and spiritually. Four of the accused were below 16 years of age when they were raped. Many of the girls had to undergo abortion. A-1 was also alleged to have murdered one 'R' with the help of A-2, A-40 A-6 and A-7 in April, 1991 by beating him and confining him to the Kudil without food and water, because he was shouting in the Ashram that A-1 was having sex with Ashram girls. 'R' had been brought to the Ashram in July, 1990. A-1 was also alleged to have cheated one 'M' inducing him to part with the money. PW-3 prosecutrix and PW-16 another inmate with the help of one of her relatives, and with the assistance of a Woman Organisation came out of the Ashram on 31.10.1994. Till 15.11.1994 no complaint was lodged. A news item in this respect dated 15.11.1994 appeared in 'The Indian Express'. On 17.11.1994 PW-3 lodged a complaint (Exbt.P-25) and a case was registered u/ss. 142 and 376 IPC. By an order dated 19.11.1994, the case was handed over to C.B.C.I.D. The prosecutrix were examined in women Police Station. On medical examination of all the prosectrix, the hymen was found not intact. The potency of A-1 was also established, Investigating Officer seized amongst other things two new packets of 'Nirodh' from the kudil of the absconded accused in the Ashram. Prosecution examined 62 witnesses. None of them turned hostile. All the prosecutrix, in their evidence, stated that A-1 had raped them on many occasions; that pregnancy of many of them was terminated by A-1, A-3 and the absconded accused; that A-1 had threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose his assault; that because of fear of him they had not disclosed full truth before the Magistrate. PW-59 stated that after DNA test of A-1 and PW-14 prosecutrix, they were found to be biological parents of the dead foetus. PW-14 stated that due to fear of A-1, she did not tell the truth to Magistrate but when the police beat them, she told that A-1 raped them. Trial Court relied on the prosecution witnesses and rejected the evidence of defence witnesses. Three of the DWs were declared perjury. Trial Court convicted A-1 u/ss. 120-8, 376(2)(c), (12 counts), 354 (one count), 302, 343, 506 Part II, (2 counts) IPC and acquitted him of charge u/s. 420 IPC. A-2 was convicted u/ss. 1208, 376 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34, 343, 201 r/w 114 and 506 Part II (2 counts) IPC. A-5 was convicted u/s. 120B IPC. A-6 was convicted u/s.120B, 376 r/w 109, 304, 201 r/w. 304 and 506 Part II (2 counts) IPC. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine with default Clause. A-3 was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 7 months and 2 days and fine with default clause. Trial Court ordered the sentence of A-1 and 2 to run consecutively· subject to proviso (a) to Section 31. It also ordered that any remission of sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or to be announced either by Central or State Government shall not apply to the sentence to the accused. Habeas Corpus petition was filed by detenues in High Court. On the examination of detenues no complaint of coersion or torture was made against the police. High Court in appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused. A-3 served out her sentence and A-5 died during pendency of appeal before High Court. In appeal to this court, appellants contended that the charge of rape did not fall within ambit of Section 375 IPC in as much as some of the victims had consented to have sexual intercourse with A-1; that there was breach of Section 160 Cr.P.C. as the victim girls were examined in Women Police Stations; that the charge is framed in contravention of Section 218 Cr.P.C. and the same being illegal cannot be cured either u/ss. 464 or 465 Cr.P.C.; that the victim girls were tortured and beaten by the Police as was evident from statement of PW-14; that conspiracy was hatched against A-1 and victim girls were with C.B.C.l.D. right from 1.11.1994; and that the term 'imprisonment' enjoined in Section 31 Cr.P.C. does not include imprisonment for life. |
