Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2855
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pradeep Nandrajog, Mukta Gupta, JJ.
Vinod - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. A. 580 of 2014
Decided On : 27-10-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Varan Goswami, APP with SI Manisha Sharma, P.S. Aman Vihar.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the vulnerability of the victim, particularly in cases involving sexual assault, and upheld the conviction based on the compelling evidence presented.
Headnote:
Conviction - Sexual Assault - IPC 376(2)(f) - Summary: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. The evidence presented, including the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, the medical examination, and the forensic report, established the guilt of the appellant. The court also considered the aggravating circumstance of the appellant taking advantage of a mentally retarded girl child. The appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged his conviction for sexual assault under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, arguing that the testimony of the child victim did not inspire confidence and that he was falsely implicated by the victim's parents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence against the appellant to be compelling, including the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborating testimony of witnesses, medical examination confirming sexual assault, and the appellant's apprehension at the scene. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the appellant's alleged false implication, and the appropriateness of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, the medical evidence, and the aggravating circumstance of the appellant's exploitation of a mentally retarded girl child to uphold the conviction and dismiss the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of imprisonment for life was upheld.
1. Vide decision dated March 30, 2013 Vinod has been held guilty for having committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as per the order on sentence dated April 04, 2013. He challenges his conviction urging that the testimony of the child victim who appeared as PW-9 does not inspire any confidence and further that he has been falsely implicated by the victim’s parents who have planted Jyoti PW- 10 as a witness.
2. This is not a case of the usual take off point when process of criminal law is set into motion by a person ringing up the police control room to inform an offence being committed at some place resulting in a DD entry being made at the concerned police station followed by a police officer proceeding to the disclosed place. It is not a case where thereafter investigation leads the investigating officer to the offender.
3. The cojoint testimony of HC Rakesh Kumar PW-1, Jyoti PW-10 and ASI Manisha Sharma PW-13 would evidence that accompanied by the parents of the prosecutrix and a few persons residing in the neighbourhood, along with Jyoti PW-10, Vinod was taken to the police station. HC Rakesh Kumar the duty officer at PS Aadarsh Nagar made daily diary entry No. 58B, Ex.PW-1/C to the effect that at 5:30 PM on October 16, 2011 the prosecutrix who was brought to the police station was sent to BJRM Hospital along with woman constable Pooja PW-2. Simultaneously copy of DD No. 58B was handed over to ASI Manisha Sharma for investigation who proceeded to BJRM Hospital where she recorded Jyoti’s (PW-10) statement Ex.PW-10/A in which Jyoti disclosed that the parents of the prosecutrix were her mama, mami and she along with her parents were residing in the same building where the parents of the prosecutrix resided. Her mama mami worked. The prosecutrix who suffered from mental retardation would play in or around in the building. In the afternoon, as she was going to the terrace of the building she heard cries of the prosecutrix from the room in which Vinod resided. She rushed to the room and was horrified to see Vinod with his pant removed lying on the prosecutrix with blood smeared on the bed sheet. People in the neighbourhood assembled and caught Vinod and waited for the parents of the prosecutrix to arrive and thereafter all, including Vinod, were taken to the police station.
4. Making an endorsement Ex.PW-13/A beneath Jyoti’s statement Ex.PW-10/A ASI Manisha Sharma got registered FIR No. 279/2011, Ex.PW-1/B.
5. Dr. Meenakshi PW-6 medically examined the prosecutrix aged 7 years and prepared the MLC Ex.PW-6/A confirming that the prosecutrix had been subjected to a sexual assault. Hymen was torn. Fourchett was torn. Clotted blood was seen on and around the genitals.
6. ASI Manisha Sharma received the clothes of the prosecutrix and the sexual assault kit after prosecutrix was medically examined as recorded in the seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A. Sent to the laboratory for forensic examination, but unfortunately not proved at the trial, the forensic report noted that semen was detected on the underwear of the prosecutrix.
7. Dr. Deepak Kumar PW-4, Associate Professor, IHBAS and Dr. Suman Kushwaha PW-5 Associate Professor of Neurology, Members of a Medical Board constituted to examine mental status of the prosecutrix gave a report Ex.PW-4/A to the effect that the prosecutrix was having moderate level of mental condition; her IQ was half of the normal child of her age. But she could convey what she wanted to, when she was comfortable and with the assistance of a person who could translate her monosyllabic and gesticulations into words.
8. At the trial, Suman PW-7 and Avdhesh PW-8, the parents of the prosecutrix deposed that they had gone to work and as usual had left the prosecutrix hoping that the neighbours would keep an eye on her. O
