Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Chaman Lal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1229 Of 2017
Decided On : 03-12-2020
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, appellate court has to consider entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable – In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, appellate court can interfere with order of acquittal – Appellate court should bear in mind presumption of innocence of accused – Trial court’s acquittal bolsters presumption of his innocence – Interference in a routine manner where other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference – Findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. (Paras 9.1 and 9.2)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376 and 506 – Rape and criminal intimidation – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Prosecutrix was alleged to be mentally retarded and became pregnant due to rape – As per DNA report, accused was biological father of female child – On reappreciation of evidence, High Court found that IQ of victim was very low and she was suffering from mental illness and she was not in a position to understand good and bad aspect of sexual assault – Merely because victim was in a position to do some household works cannot discard medical evidence that victim had mild mental retardation and she was not in a position to understand good and bad aspect of sexual assault – Accused had taken disadvantage of mental illness and low IQ of victim – It was never the case of accused that it was a case of consent – Even if there might be some contradictions with respect to language known by victim, in that case also, it cannot be said to be major contradictions to disbelieve entire medical evidence on mental status of victim – High Court is justified in reversing order of acquittal and convicting accused for offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC – High Court has also taken a very lenient view by imposing minimum sentence of seven years – A person suffering from mental disorder or mental sickness deserves special care, love and affection – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court convicting accused upheld. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court, State preferred appeal before the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order and on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, more particularly the medical evidence, the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal and has convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC by observing that the prosecutrix was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspect of the sexual assault.
Findings of Court:
IQ of a person can be known on the basis of the questions, activities and the history of a patient. Therefore, even if there might be some contradictions with respect to language known by the victim, in that case also, it cannot be said to be the major contradictions to disbelieve entire medical evidence on the mental status of the victim.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2016/19.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2014, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the appellant herein – original accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and consequently has convicted the appellant – accused for the aforesaid offences and has sentenced him to undergo seven years R.I. with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further six months R.I. under Section 376 IPC and four years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further three months R.I. under Section 506 IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under :
That the father of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the accused with the allegations that on 1.4.2008, his wife Dhaneshwari Devi telephonically informed him at Shimla that their daughter (prosecutrix) is pregnant. It was alleged that the prosecutrix told her mother that when she used to go to jungle to graze goats and cattle, accused also used to go to jungle to graze cattle and goats. The prosecutrix told her mother that three-four months ago, accused had sexual intercourse with her forcibly and without her consent. That the accused threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anyone. That due to fear and due to forgetting the same and further due to mental weakness, she did not disclose about the incident to anyone including her mother. That the prosecutrix was got medically examined and as per the Medical Officer the prosecutrix was carrying a pregnancy of 31 weeks. Her age was stated to be 19 years. Prosecutrix was alleged to be mentally retarded. She was medically examined at IGMC, Shimla as well as PGI, Chandigarh. Prosecutrix gave birth to a female child on 19.6.2008 at KNH, Shimla. Blood samples of the prosecutrix, the baby and the accused were taken for DNA test. As per report, accused was the biological father of the female child. The accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore he came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
2.1 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses including the parents of the prosecutrix (PW 1 & 2), Prosecutrix (PW3), Laboratory Technician – Jitender Kumar (PW8), Dr. Sarla Chand (PW9), Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Radiologist (PW10), Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry (PW11), Dr. Jeeva Nand Chauhan (PW12), Nand Singh, Sr. Lab Technician, KNH, Shimla (PW13), Dr. Monika Sharma (PW14), ASI Takpa Dorje (PW17), SI Sunder Singh (PW19), Dr. Rama Malhotra, PGI, Chandigarh (PW22) and other witnesses. That after closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He pleaded total innocence. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR and also on the ground that the prosecutrix was not mentally unsound to understand the consequences and what was happening.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, the State preferred appeal before the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, more particularly the medical evidence, the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal and has convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC by observing that the prosecutrix was not in a position to und
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
