Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 1682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
R.B. Misra, and Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
State of H.P. - Appellant.
Versus
Rajender Singh & Others - Respondents.
Cr. Appeal No. 220 of 2001
Decided on : March 23, 2011
For the appellant :Mr.Rajender Dogra, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajender Dogra, Additional Advocate General.
For the respondents:Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving consent in sexual interactions and the determination of the victim's age.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Sexual Assault - Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(2)(g), 452, 506 read with Section 34 - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act - Medical opinion as evidence - Consent in sexual interaction - Age of the victim - Medical experts' opinions - Lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the sexual assault of a minor victim by the accused. The victim initially did not disclose the assault but later revealed the incident to her mother after becoming pregnant. The prosecution presented medical evidence and witness testimonies to support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age to be less than 16 years at the time of the incident. It concluded that the victim was above 16 years of age and appeared to have consented to the sexual interaction with the accused. As a result, the court dismissed the criminal appeal, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues included the victim's age at the time of the incident, the credibility of medical opinions, and the presence of consent in the sexual interaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the lack of conclusive medical evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal appeal, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
R.B. Misra, J.
The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 1.8.2000, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1997, acquitting the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 376(2) (g), 452, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that accused/respondent No.1 sexually assaulted victim / prosecutrix (PW2) in the month of December, 1996 after trespassing into her residential house, when her mother and brother were away from the house. After 15 days of such occurrence, accused-respondent Rajender Singh alongwith co-accused Raghuvir Singh alias Bhuti came again and jointly sexually assaulted victim / prosecutrix, as her mother had gone to Jahu for selling milk and her brother Budhi Ram (PW6) had gone to village Bhambhla in connection with his job. After couple of months when victim / prosecutrix had not come across menstruation, PW.3 (Geeta Devi), the mother of the victim / prosecutrix, being worried enquired her forcibly, then she disclosed the incident. As per narration of the victim / prosecutrix, a report on 21.3.1997, at about 2.40 P.M was lodged at police station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, stating that in the month of December, 1996, when she was alone in her house, accused Rajender came there in the morning and asked about the whereabouts of her brother and mother and on her telling that her brother had gone to village Bhambla and her mother had gone to Jahu, accused Rajender Singh followed her inside the house and forcibly laid her down on the floor, untied her salwar and committed sexual intercourse on her. However, victim / prosecutrix neither raised hue and cry nor revealed the said act to anyone, as she was afraid that she would be killed. After 15 days, accused Rajender Singh accompanied by his friend, Bhuti again turned up at the house of the prosecutrix, during morning hours, when the mother as well as brother of the victim / prosecutrix had gone away. The victim / prosecutrix was doing the work of sweeping. She was again subjected to sexual intercourse by accused Rajender Singh, followed by his companion namely Bhuti. After sexual assault she became pregnant. When her mother came to know about her pregnancy, on 20.3.1997, the victim/prosecutrix was forced to reveal the truth and thereafter she was taken to police station.
3. After investigation, accused persons were charged for the aforesaid offences and were tried by learned Sessions Judge.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 14 prosecution witnesses, namely, Dr.Meena Sharma (PW1), Kumari Anita Devi (PW2), Smt. Geeta Devi (PW3), Dr.Ramesh Chanan (PW4), Sh.Som Dutt (PW5), Sh.Budhi Singh (PW6), Sh.Braham Dass (PW7), Dr.Balbir Singh Verma (PW8), Sh.Bishambar Dutt (PW9), Dr.Babita Chandel (PW10), Dr.Rakesh Kumar (PW11), Susheel Kumar (PW12), Dr.Punam Sandhu (PW13) and Sh.Ram Singh (PW14), whereas, the accused through their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., have denied the prosecution case.
5. Dr.Meena Sharma (PW1) examined victim / prosecutrix on 21.4.1997 vide medico legal certificate (Ex.PW1/A) and noticed no external or internal injury on her person, however, had noticed hymen torn which admitted two fingers. After her urine test pregnancy was ruled out.
6. The victim / prosecutrix (PW2), in her endeavour to support the prosecution case, has stated that at the time of alleged occurrence she was 14 years of age but she did not deliver any child as her menstruation returned without any medical aid after about 7 or 8 months. As per testimony of PW2, she was not subjected to sexual intercourse prior to the alleged occurrence.
7. Smt.Geeta Devi (PW3) mother of the victim / prosecutrix stated that the victim / prosecutrix was 14 years of age at the time of incident and she usually left her residential house around 6.30
