Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, I.S. Mehta, JJ.
State - Appellants
Vs.
Amar Pal - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 1309 of 2013
Decided On : 09-12-2019
For the Appellant :Ashish Dutta, APP and Vikram Singh, Inspector (Advocate)
For the Respondents:Kedar Yadav, Harkaran Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Baisoya, Advocates
The judgment emphasizes the need for a sensitive approach in cases of child rape and the duty of the court to ensure that a guilty person does not escape punishment.
Headnote:
Rape - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376/506 - The judgment discusses the commission of rape on a minor victim and the identification and culpability of the accused. The court analyzes the evidence, including the testimonies of the minor victim, her parents, and other witnesses, as well as the medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court sets aside the acquittal and convicts the accused for the proved commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the commission of rape on a minor victim and the subsequent acquittal of the accused by the trial court due to doubts regarding the reliability of the victim's testimony and identification of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the minor victim's testimony was consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence. The court also observed that the trial court's doubts regarding the victim's identification of the accused were unfounded and that the evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The critical issues were whether the minor victim was subjected to rape and whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused for the commission of the sexual offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the minor victim's testimony, supported by other witnesses and medical evidence, established the commission of rape and the culpability of the accused. The court also emphasized the need for a sensitive approach in cases of child rape and the duty of the court to ensure that a guilty person does not escape punishment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused for the proved commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC, directing the accused to be taken into custody forthwith.
JUDGMENT
Siddharth Mridul, J.
1. The State having been granted leave to appeal in CRL.L.P.304/2012 vide order dated 09.10.2013, assails the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Designated Judge : TADA/POTA/MCOCA, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 13/09, titled as 'State v. Amar Pal' arising out of FIR No. 560/08, Police Station- Sangam Vihar, whereby the solitary accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent'), was acquitted qua the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on a report, at about 12:05 AM, on the night intervening 8/9.10.2008 -- recorded by S-50 through wireless set - an information of a quarrel at C-10, Lal Kuan was received, which was registered as DD No. 38 (Ex. PW. 7/A) at Police Post Pul Prahladpur Police Station- Sangam Vihar; and on the basis of which FIR No. 560/2008 dated 09.10.2008, under Sections 376/506 IPC was subsequently registered at the Police Station Sangam Vihar.
3. Head Constable Prahlad Singh PW-12 testified that on 09.10.2008, when he was posted at Police Post Pul Prahladpur, Police Station - Sangam Vihar, on receipt of the said DD No. 38 Ex. PW. 7/A, he along with Constable Sanjay Kumar PW-13 went to the spot at C-18/B, Lal Kuan, Chungi No. 13, New Delhi. The minor prosecutrix X PW-1, aged about 11 years, along with her father Upender Yadav PW-2 and mother Sunita Devi PW-6, met him at the spot, where several public persons had also gathered. The father and the public persons handed over to the police, the respondent Amar Pal, son of Chanda Ram, who had been beaten up by them; and whose name was revealed upon sustained enquiry. Upender Yadav PW-2, the father of the minor victim X simultaneously gave a complaint to the effect that, the respondent Amar Pal had committed rape upon his minor daughter, prosecutrix X. On this complaint, Head Constable Prahlad Singh PW-12, informed the In-charge of Police Post Pul Prahladpur, Sub-Inspector Nirbhay Kumar; and thereafter took the minor victim X along with her parents, as well as, the respondent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'AIMS') for their medical examination. Head Constable Prahlad Singh PW-12 was accompanied by Constable Sanjay Kumar PW-13, at that time.
4. The minor victim X was medically examined at the AIIMS vide MLC Ex. PW. 14/A, by Dr. Ajit Singh PW-14. The respondent Amar Pal was also medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW. 11/A by Dr. Akhilesh Raj PW-11. All the exhibits, including the underwear of the minor victim X, her vaginal swab, as well as, the underwear of the respondent Amar Pal and his blood sample in gauze with penile swab, given by the examining doctors, were seized by W/SI Satish Bhati, Investigating Officer PW-16. W/SI Satish Bhati PW-16 recorded the statement of the minor victim X and prepared the rukka Ex. PW. 16/A, which was sent to Police Station Sangam Vihar through Constable Sanjay Kumar PW-13 for the registration of the subject FIR.
5. The respondent was also sent to the Police Station along with Head Constable Prahlad; and the minor victim X was taken to the scene of crime, where the site plan Ex. PW. 16/B was prepared.
6. The subject rukka which was exhibited as Ex. PW. 16/A recorded the complaint of the victim as follows:-
7. W/SI Satish Bhati PW-16 then went to Police Station and arrested the respondent vide arrest memo Ex. PW. 1/B dated 09.10.2008. On the very next day i.e. the 10.10.2008, the statement of the minor victim X, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide Ex. PW. 5/A, which reads as follows:-
"Statement of minor victim' X (sic) d/o Upender Yadav, r/o Lal Kuan, Chungi No. 3, Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
Certified that the statement of 'minor victim' (sic) has been recorded by me in my own handwriting. The same i
