Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Mahaveer @ Bittu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 2018
Decided On : 26-07-2019
Sexual Offences - Rape - IPC 363, 366, 307, 376(2)(j), 376(2)(m) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the rape of a three and a half-year-old girl. The victim was found bleeding and with severe injuries after being taken away by an unknown person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on medical evidence, forensic reports, and circumstantial evidence, despite the lack of direct witnesses to the crime.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant was responsible for the rape and injuries sustained by the victim, despite the absence of direct identification or eyewitnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on medical examination reports, forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant, emphasizing the significance of DNA matching and forensic analysis in establishing the commission of the crime.
Final Decision: The trial court's decision to convict and sentence the appellant under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 317 dated 25.09.2013 registered at Police Station Patan, District Sikar under Section 363, 366 (A), 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Prosecution story in brief, as per the FIR is that on 25.09.2013 at about 8:30 p.m. daughter (victim) of the complainantAjeet Saini aged about three and a half years had gone to get water from railway station. However, victim had been taken away by some unknown person and she had been raped. Victim came home crying and narrated the incident to the complainant. Victim was bleeding from her genitals and her intestines were protruding from her private part. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered.
3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 363, 366A, 376 and 307 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Act. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty two witnesses during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
6. Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 09.05.2018 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 363, 366, 307, 376(2)(j) and 376(2)(m) IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. There was no identification parade of the appellant to connect him with the crime.
8. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal.
9. In the present case, at the time of incident date of birth of the victim was 07.09.2009. FIR was lodged by the father of the victim that his daughter had been raped by some unknown person. Victim was got medically examined. Ex. P20 is the medico legal examination report of the victim and the same has been proved by PW 21-Dr. Priyanka Sharma. A perusal of Ex. P20 reveals that patient was shifted to operation theatre and general anesthesia was given to her. Vaginal packing which was removed revealed that hymen of the victim was torn.There was a transverse tear in posterior fornix of vagina 5x4 centimeter, communicating with peritoneal cavity.
10. Ex. P-39 reveals that injury in vagina of the victim was found to be dangerous to life and was declared grievous in nature whereas the other four injuries on the person of the victim were declared simple in nature. Ex. P39 was also proved by PW21- Dr. Priyanka Sharma.
11. Thus, from Ex. P39 and Ex. P20 it is established that the victim had been raped and had suffered injury in the said process which was dangerous to life.
12. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether victim had been raped and injured by the appellant.
13. Complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-6 deposed that as per the contents of the FIR. Victim was not examined u/s 161/164 Cr.P.C. on account of her tender age.
14. Pw15-Dilip Kumar Saini deposed that on 24.09.2013 he had received information that four years old girl has been raped by some unknown person. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, formal FIR was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded and site plan was prepared. One pair of 'chappal' which were having blood stains were recovered from the spot and were taken in possession vide memo Ex. P13. Blood stains earth was also lifted from the spot and was taken in possession vide memo Ex. P14. Plain earth was lifted from the spot and was taken in possession vide memo of Ex.P15. T-shirt, Pajami and five toffees were recovered from the victim and were taken in possession vide memo Ex. P17. Victim was got medically examined and her
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
