SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mai Chand vs State Of Haryana on 3 August, 2018

CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 1


Date of decision:-3.8.2018

Mai Chand



State of Haryana



Present : Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.

Ms.Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.



Accused Mai Chand faced trial by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Panipat, who vide judgment dated 19.11.2003 convicted

him for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 376 and 506 IPC and vide

order of the even date he was sentenced as under:

Under Section Sentence Awarded
323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
341 IPC Simple imprisonment for one month.
506 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 14:49:20 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 2

376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for six

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The accused-convict – Mai Chand, who is appellant before

this Court prays that the appeal be accepted, the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed against him be set aside and he

be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that criminal

machinery was set into motion by the complainant Bachno Devi, aged

65 years, resident of village Sithana, who in her statement made to the

police on 1.5.2001 stated that she had been earning her livelihood by

doing menial jobs; that on 30.4.2001 at about 2:00 p.m., when she had

left her house for going to her daughter house situated at Gopal Colony,

Panipat and time was about 7:00 p.m. and while she was present at

Kabri Railway crossing for the purpose of boarding a bus then accused

Mai Chand from her village, who happened to be a member of the

village Gram Panchayat came there, addressed her as aunt and

represented to her that he would get her some grant under Indra Vikas

Scheme; that he asked her to accompany her; that he stated that some

other women of the village had also come; that accordingly the

complainant accompanied the accused; that when they reached near

eucalyptus tress of Kachi Nagar, the complainant enquired from the

accused as to where he was taking her, then accused took out a knife

from his pocket asking the complainant to come along with him,

otherwise she would be killed by him; that the accused gagged her

2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 3

mouth, took her to the pits situated near Garhi Sikenderpur and had

sexually intercourse with her thrice, which was against her wishes; that

the complainant continued to weep and requested the accused to leave

her but to no effect, rather accused threatened the complainant and took

her to the village and left her there at about 11:00 p.m., threatening the

complainant not to disclose the occurrence to anybody, otherwise he

would kill her.

According to the complainant, she narrated the entire

incident to her husband Rattan Chand, who took her to Sarpanch

Darshna Devi, where the entire incident was narrated. Then the

complainant along with other respectables of the village went to the

police station and lodged FIR there. After registration of the FIR, the

matter was investigated. The accused was arrested in this case.

After completion of investigation and other formalities,

challan against the accused was prepared and filed in the Court of

learned Area Magistrate.

On presentation of challan in the Court of learned Area

Magistrate, he supplied copies of documents relied upon in the challan

to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then

finding that the offence under Section 376 IPC is exclusively triable by

Court of Sessions, learned Area Magistrate committed the case to the

Court of learned Sessions Judge, Panipat from where it was entrusted to

the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.

On receipt of case in the Court, learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Panipat observing that prima facie charge for offences under

Sections 323, 341, 376 and 506 IPC was disclosed against accused, he

3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 4

was charge-sheeted accordingly, to which, he pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

During the course of its evidence, the prosecution examined

as many as thirteen witnesses namely Balwant Singh, Patwari as PW1,

HC Anand Parkash as PW2, Constable Jai Bhagwan as PW3,

Smt.Bachno Devi as PW4, Dr.Tejinder Kumar as PW5, Dr.Neeru as

PW6, Constable Karambir as PW7, Constable Balkar Singh as PW8,

Rattan Singh as PW9, Sh.Dhan Singh as PW10, SI/SHO Naresh Kumar

as PW11, ASI Om Parkash as PW12 and Ex.Constable Raj Kumar as


With that the prosecution evidence got concluded.

Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against

him were put to him but he denied the allegations contending that he is

innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.

In defence evidence accused examined Subhash as DW1,

who stated that he was acquainted with the accused and the

complainant; that the complainant had migrated from Rajasthan to

village Sithana; that she wanted to have the panchayat land meant for

the cattle; that the accused had objected to the allotment of the land to

the complainant, as such she became inimical towards the accused,

however despite objection of the accused, the complainant was allotted

panchayat land; that the complainant had stated at that time that she

would teach a lesson to the accused for coming in her way in the

allotment of the panchayat land; that the accused was the member of

Gram Panchayat at that time and that the complainant had migrated to

4 of 10
12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 5

village Sithana about 8/10 years back.

After hearing arguments, learned trial Court convicted and

sentenced the accused as mentioned above, which left him aggrieved

and he has filed the present appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused –

convict, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana

besides going through the record.

Bachno Devi, the prosecutrix while getting her statement

recorded as PW4 repeated on oath the case of the prosecution. She was

subjected to lengthy cross examination on behalf of the accused but she

stuck to her guns and could not be shattered on material contents. No

plausible or satisfactory explanation could be furnished providing the

motive for alleged false implication of the accused in this case. The

motive suggested that the accused being member of the village Gram

Panchayat had opposed the allotment of panchayat land to the

complainant, though the panchayat had allotted such land to her and for

that reason she bore a grudge against the accused does not appear to be

satisfactory. No woman much less an elderly one would invite stigma on

her moral character by levelling such type of allegations against a person

without any rhyme or reason. The motive suggested for alleged false

implication is too trifle to spur the complainant to level wrong

allegations of rape against the accused. Rattan Chand – PW9 husband of

the complainant is though not an eye witness of the incident but as per

prosecution story soon after the occurrence, the complainant had

informed him in that regard then they had gone to the village Sarpanch

and thereafter accompanied by several persons had gone to police

5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 6

station to lodge report regarding the accused there. Therefore, his

testimony is res gestae and corroborates the prosecution story on

material aspects. The trial Court has rightly observed that the

complainant prosecutrix was allotted the land by Gram Panchayat about

7-8 years back and it is not believable that prosecutrix thought of taking

revenge from the accused after such a long period of time.

The medical evidence in this case corroborates the ocular

evidence. PW6 Dr.Neeru, who had medico legally examined the

complainant on 1.5.2001 while posted as Medical Officer at General

Hospital, Panipat, the time of examination of being 5:00 p.m., had found

three injuries on her person, which are as under:

1. Blunt injury on forearm 1 cm x 1 cm reddish in


2. Contusion i.e. blunt injury on face on both side of

face 1 cm x 1 cm.

3. There was abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm at the lower back in


She had opined that kind of weapon used for injuries No.1

to 3 was blunt and injuries were caused within a period 24 hours. She

further proved copy of MLR as Ex.PF/1. She had also proved salwar of

the complainant as Ex.P3, shirt Ex.P4, cover of the parcel Ex.P5, two

slides Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, swabs tubes Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 and cover of the

parcel Ex.P10. As per the report from the FSL Ex.PG, semen was found

to be there on the salwar and the shirt pointing out that the complainant

had been subjected to rape. From the statement of PW5 Dr.Tejinder

Kumar, who had medico legally examined the accused on 5.5.2001 at

6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 7

the police request, it comes out that accused was able to perform sexual

intercourse since there was nothing to suggest that he could not do so.

He proved MLR of accused as Ex.PE/1, underwear of accused Ex.P1

and sample seal as Ex.P2. From the statement of PW7 Constable

Karambir, who had proved his affidavit Ex.PH and testimony of PW8

Constable Balkar besides statements of other witnesses corroboration is

lent to the case of prosecution.

The investigation in this case has been conducted in a fair

and impartial manner. The Investigating Officer had no reason to

involve the accused in this case wrongly, challan him falsely or to

depose against him to secure his conviction.

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that there is delay

of 15 hours in lodging a report with the police, which has been left

unexplained and the prosecution story should be disbelieved for that


However, I am not convinced by this argument. The delay

in such type of sexual offences is nothing unusual because it involves

the dignity and honour of the family. The victim and his family

members do ponder over the things, concert their nears and dears and

then take decision to inform the police. In the instant case as per the

prosecution story goes after the incident, the accused had left the

complainant near her house. The complainant had then discussed the

matter with her husband Rattan Singh, thereafter they had gone to the

village Sarpanch and then had gone to the police station. Therefore, the

delay, if any in reporting the matter has been adequately explained and it

does not affect the credibility of the prosecution story.

7 of 10
12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 8

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the

medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution story as regards

rape having been committed upon the complainant. However, I do not

find any merit in this contention. As per report received from FSL,

Madhuban marks of semen were found to be there on the shirt and

salwar of the complainant, which clearly points out towards rape.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to authority

Devanand Versus State (NCT of Delhi), 2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 771

by Delhi High Court. The same had different facts where an accused and

prosecutrix lived in the same house and as per allegations accused raped

the prosecutrix many a time by threatening to put her parents to death.

However, there was no injury or resistance on part of prosecutrix

coupled with delay in lodging the FIR, the accused was acquitted giving

benefit of doubt. Here the facts are different. The delay in lodging the

FIR had been adequately explained and as per the prosecution story

accused had threatened the complainant and then raped her. Putting a

person in so much fear so that she cannot offer any resistance does not

go to show that she as a consenting party. Therefore, this authority does

not help the appellant in any manner.

As regards the next citation State of Rajasthan Versus

Kishanlal, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 852 where in a rape case conviction

of the accused had been set aside on the following grounds:

(i) Statement of prosecutrix that accused offered her

Rs.20/- for having intercourse and also stated that

another persons will also pay Rs.20/- for same


8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 9

(ii)No alarm was raised though the brother-in-law of

the prosecutrix and his wife were sleeping only 20-25

feet away.

(iii)Two abrasions were found on the breasts of

prosecutrix – According to Doctor these could be self


(iv)According to prosecutrix she was silenced by

accused by show of knife – Accused was caught on

the spot, but knife was not seized.

(v) These facts show that rape was with consent.

For the reasons discussed above and view of the different

facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this authority is also not

helpful to the appellant.

The judgment of conviction is well reasoned one, based

upon proper appraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct

interpretation of law. There is no illegality or infirmity therein.

As regards the sentence part, the accused had done a very

heinous crime of repeating rape on an aged woman by causing injuries

to her, illegally detaining her and threatening her. Such type of conduct

on the part of accused cannot be taken lightly. He has been sentenced for

eight years for the offence under Section 376 IPC. No scope for

reduction in sentence is there lest that should send a wrong signal in the

society that one can commit a heinous crime and then get away lightly.

The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence are

upheld whereas appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is

dismissed accordingly.

9 of 10
12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::
CRA-S-330-SB-2004(OM) 10

It is stated that appellant – accused namely Mai Chand is on

bail in terms of the orders passed by this Court. The bail order is

cancelled. He is ordered to be taken into custody and made to undergo

the remaining sentence. Necessary direction in that regard be issued to

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat.

3.8.2018 JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 12-08-2018 14:49:21 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation