Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2415
High Court of Delhi
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
Kartar Singh
Versus
State
CRL.A. No. 870 of 2009
Decided on: 11-11-2014
For the Appellant:Amardeep Singh, M.L. Yadav, Baljinder Singh, Bhagwant Singh, Mansimran Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Rajdipa Behura, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if an accused is charged for a major offence but is not found guilty, and if the facts establish a lesser offence, the accused can be convicted for the lesser offence.
Headnote:
Rape - Conviction under Section 376 IPC - 376 - 506 - The court discussed the acts and sections referenced in the judgment, highlighting the legal provisions and their interpretations. The court found that the necessary ingredients of Section 366/354 IPC were satisfied, and the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366/354 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC for an incident involving a 8-year-old girl. The child victim made statements about the incident, and medical examinations were conducted. The appellant claimed trial and denied the case of the prosecution, alleging a misunderstanding and false FIR against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of the child victim and her parents were creditworthy and inspiring confidence, leading to the conviction of the appellant. The court also discussed the different versions given by the child victim at different stages of the case, and the medical evidence presented.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the testimonies, the medical evidence, and the different versions provided by the child victim at different stages of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that if an accused is charged for a major offence but is not found guilty, and if the facts establish a lesser offence, the accused can be convicted for the lesser offence. The court also discussed the legal position that if an accused is charged with a major offence and the ingredients of the major offence are missing, the accused can be convicted for the minor offence if the necessary ingredients of the minor offence are present.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. His conviction under Section 506 IPC was maintained, and he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366/354 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the appellant was entitled to benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Appellant impugning the judgment dated 07.09.2009 and order on sentence dated 09.09.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/-for committing the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The Appellant was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-for committing the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC in case FIR No.391/2001, Sessions Case No.22/08 Police Station Patel Nagar. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
2. The occurrence for which the Appellant has been convicted had taken place on 24.06.2001 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Patel Nagar. On that date, at about 4:02 p.m., DD No.20A was recorded at Police Station Patel Nagar in respect of ‘galat kaam’ being done with a 8 years old girl at Prem Nagar Gali No.7 and that the offender had been apprehended. The DD entry was assigned to SI N.R.Lamba, who along with Ct. Suresh left for the spot. SI N.R.Lamba found the child victim and her parents present at the spot. He was also handed over Kartar Singh (Appellant herein) who was in injured condition. The child victim ‘A’ (name withheld to conceal her identity) made statement (Ex.PW-2/A) in the presence of her parents, on the basis of which he sent rukka (Ex.PW-11/B), pursuant to which case FIR No.391/2001, under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered.
3. As per the statement (Ex.PW-2/A) made by Km. ‘A’, at that time she was studying in 3rd standard. She alongwith her friend was on the roof top and they were plucking black plum (jamun). In the meantime, Kartar Singh, residing in the adjoining house called her and dragged her to his roof. He asked her to stand silently or he would kill her. Thereafter, he lowered her underwear upto legs and also lowered his underwear and started doing ‘galat kaam’. She started crying and asked him to let her go, but she was not allowed to go. She started bleeding from her private part and had lot of pain. Thereafter, he ran away from there. After wearing her underwear, she returned home.
4. The child victim as well as the Appellant were taken for medical examination. The exhibits were sent to FSL. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
5. The Appellant at the time of arrest in this case had given his age as 17 ½ years. On the basis of school record, as his date of birth was 21.12.1979, he was held to be not a juvenile and sent by the Juvenile Justice Board to face trial as an adult.
6. When the case was assigned to the Court of Sessions, charge for committing the offence under Section 376/506 IPC was framed, to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all to bring home the guilt of the Appellant/Accused. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while denying the case of the prosecution, the Appellant claimed that there was some misunderstanding which resulted in to beatings being given to him by the parents of the victim, who thought that he had misbehaved with her. Since the Appellant was bleeding due to the beatings given to him, apprehending that the Appellant might get a case registered against them, they lodged this false FIR against him. He also submitted that his blood group is ‘AB’ and he can subject himself to any medical examination to establish this fact. He also examined one defence witness in his support, i.e. DW1, Dr.M.S.Lakshmi, to prove his blood test report (Ex.DW-1/A) to establish that his blood group was ‘AB Negative’.
8. After considering the testimonies of the child victim and her parents, the learned Trial Court found their testimonies to be creditworthy, inspiring confidence and not requiring any further corroboration. Thus, believing the testimonies of PW-2 child victim and her parents, th
