Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, J.
Anjana Devi @ Anju – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 165, 170, 184 of 2015
Decided On : 24-06-2016
For the Appellants :Mr. Vikas Rathore, Mr. N.S. Chandel and Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.S. Verma and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Additional Advocate Generals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and conclusive evidence in criminal cases, especially in cases of sexual assault, and the duty of the court to critically evaluate the testimony of the prosecutrix.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376, 120-B, 354, 342, 506 - The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Section 5 -
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged sexual assault at different places over a period of time. The trial court convicted some accused but acquitted others. The High Court found the reasoning adopted by the trial court in convicting the appellants-accused to be perverse and acquitted the appellants-accused due to unreliable testimony of the prosecutrix and lack of conclusive evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found the reasoning adopted by the trial court in convicting the appellants-accused to be perverse and acquitted the appellants-accused due to unreliable testimony of the prosecutrix and lack of conclusive evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the lack of conclusive evidence, and the correctness of the trial court's reasoning in convicting the appellants-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable and the evidence was not conclusive, leading to the acquittal of the appellants-accused.
Final Decision: The High Court acquitted the appellants-accused due to unreliable testimony of the prosecutrix and lack of conclusive evidence.
Sanjay Karol, J.
1. It is a matter of record that in connection with F.I.R. No. 151 of 2012, dated 26.6.2012 (Ext. PW-17/A), registered at Police Station Sadar Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. nine persons were charged for having committed the following offences:-
Name of Accused
Offences under which accused stands charged
Anjana Devi @ Anju (Accused A-1)
120-B IPC; 363, 365 and 366-A IPC read with 120-B IPC; 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and 506 IPC
Lekh Raj @ Lekhu (Accused A-2)
376 IPC
Jaswant Singh (Accused A-3)
376 IPC
Pawan Kumar (Accused A-4)
376 IPC and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Hans Raj (Accused A-5)
5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Anil Kumar @ Thapu (Accused A-6)
120-B IPC; and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Joginder Singh @ Jeen (Accused A-7)
120-B IPC; 376/511 IPC read with 120-B IPC; and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Shoukat Ali @ Shoki (Accused A- 8)
120-B IPC; 354 IPC read with 120-B IPC; and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Anita @ Neeto (Accused A-9)
120-B IPC; 342 IPC read with 120-B IPC; and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. It is also a matter of record that in order to establish the aforesaid charges, in all, prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded, in which they took common plea of innocence, false implication and denial.
3. Appreciating the material placed on record by the prosecution, though the trial Court in terms of impugned judgment dated 31.3.2015/6.4.2015, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. vs. Anjna Devi @ Anju & others, acquitted accused Jaswant Singh (Accused A-3), Pawan Kumar (Accused A-4), Hans Raj (Accused A-5), Anil Kumar @ Thapu (Accused A-6) and Shoukat Ali @ Shoki (Accused A-8) in relation to all the charged offences, but however convicted Anjana Devi @ Anju (Accused A-1 & appellant in Cr. A. No. 165 of 2015), Lekh Raj @ Lekhu (Accused A-2 & appellant in Cr. A. No. 184 of 2015), Joginder Singh @ Jeen (Accused A-7 & appellant in Cr. A. No. 170 of 2015) and Anita @ Neeto (Accused A-9 & appellant in Cr. A. No. 170 of 2015) and sentenced as under:-
Name of accused
Sections
Sentence
Anjana Devi @ Anju (A-1)
120-B read with 376 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
506 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
All the sentences awarded shall run concurrently.
Lekh Raj @ Lekhu (Accused A-2)
376 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Joginder Singh @ Jeens (Accused A-7)
354 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Anita @ Neeto (Accused A-9)
120-B read with 354 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of
