Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1163
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, Ajay Mohan Goel, JJ.
Krishan Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 123 of 2016
Decided On : 20-07-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborative evidence, including witness testimony, medical reports, and DNA profiling, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of sexual assault.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Sexual Assault - Section 376 IPC, Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act - [Section 376 IPC, Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act] - The court discussed the evidence presented, including the victim's testimony, medical examination reports, and DNA profiling, to establish the accused's guilt. The court highlighted the corroboration of the victim's statement by witnesses and medical evidence, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution charged the accused with sexual assault under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim, a minor, alleged that the accused forcibly assaulted her, leading to the filing of an FIR and subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including the victim's testimony, medical reports, and DNA profiling, and found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentencing.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, corroboration of her statement, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the accused's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the corroboration of the victim's statement by witnesses, medical evidence, and DNA profiling to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentencing of the accused.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment/order dated 17/18.2.2016, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2014, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The victim was held entitled to compensation under Victim Compensation Scheme and 50% of the fine amount was also ordered to be paid to the victim through her parents.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that PW-1, prosecutrix was born on 13.5.2001, as per birth certificate Ext. PW-5/B. On 12.6.2014, she went to school at 8:00 AM. Her mother and father were not present in the house and PW-2 Roshani Devi, grandmother was present in the house. PW-4 Rakesh Kumar her Uncle left house in connection with his employment and met victim near temple who was coming out of the bushes and was crying. PW-1 prosecutrix disclosed to PW-4 Rakesh Kumar that the accused had pushed her into the bushes and committed forcible intercourse with her. PW-4 Rakesh Kumar called PW-2 Roshani Devi and narrated everything to her. PW-2 Roshani Devi made inquiries from PW-1 prosecutrix who disclosed that she was ravished by the accused. PW-4 Rakesh Kumar went in search of the accused along with his brother and one Balwant Singh. PW-2 Roshani Devi along with PW-1 prosecutrix went to the Police Station and moved application Ext. PW-1/A whereupon FIR Ext. PW-10/A was registered in the Police Station. PW-12 Dr. Lata Chandel examined the prosecutrix and issued MLC Ext. PW-12/B. The statement of the victim was also recorded before the Magistrate vide Ext. PW-1/B. The accused was arrested. He was produced before PW-9 Dr. Parmod Guleria, who after examination issued MLC Ext. PW-9/B. The accused was also produced before PW-19 Dr. Dharam Pal and his blood on FTA card and DNA profiling was obtained. Similarly, PW-17 Dr. D.R. Sharma obtained the blood sample of victim on FTA card and Ext. PW-17/A was obtained. The matter was investigated and challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as twenty witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence. He examined two witnesses in defence. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General has supported the judgment/order of the learned trial Court dated 17/18.2.2016.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully.
6. PW-1 is the prosecutrix. She has stated that accused had committed illegal act with her. She has signed applications Ext. PW-1/A and PW-1/B. She was produced before the doctor when she was medically examined. She had gone to the Court at Mandi. The learned Magistrate has made enquiries from her. The learned Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 164-5A(a)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the victim was again examined. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she was sexually assaulted by the accused. She could not narrate her age. She could not tell her date of birth. She stayed at Kharidi. She could not narrate the subjects studied by her in 5th and 8th standard. Initially, she deposed that she was tutored to make statement, however, on a Court que
