Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma And Sureshwar Thakur, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Dile Ram - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 444/2011
Decided on : 26-07-2016
DNA Evidence - Rape - IPC 376, IPC 506 - The court discussed the prosecution's case against the accused, the medical evidence, and the DNA report which conclusively proved the accused as the biological father of the child. The court found the prosecution's case to be natural, trustworthy, and corroborated with medical evidence, leading to the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix was raped by the accused, resulting in pregnancy. The accused threatened the prosecutrix to keep the incident a secret. The prosecution proved the case against the accused under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's case to be natural, trustworthy, and corroborated with medical evidence, leading to the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC based on the prosecution's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the DNA report which conclusively proved the accused as the biological father of the child, and found the prosecutrix's statement to be natural and trustworthy, leading to the conviction of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the State against Judgment dated 5.7.2011 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (Campt at Karsog) in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2007, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake) who was charged with and tried for offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, has been acquitted.
2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that prosecutrix was residing with her uncle. She left the school after passing class 6th. Her father died about four years prior to the incident. Her mother was ill. Prosecutrix, her sister and her younger brother resided in the house of their uncle and one brother resided with her mother. Prosecutrix had gone to jungle six months prior to January 2006, for grazing cattle of her uncle. Accused also used to visit the jungle for grazing the cattle. Accused came to the prosecutrix and started teasing her. When prosecutrix protested, accused dragged the prosecutrix below a big stone and forcibly raped her. She tried to rescue herself but the accused gagged her mouth. Accused also threatened to kill her in case she told the incident to any person. Accused had raped her two-four times thereafter also. Prosecutrix became pregnant. Her uncle made inquiry from her on which she revealed the incident to her uncle. When inquiry was made by the uncle of the prosecutrix from the accused, he replied that whatever was to be done by him, he had done and uncle of the prosecutrix could do whatever he liked. Matter was reported to the police on which FIR Ext.PW-6/A was registered. An application Ext. PW-11/A was moved for conducting medical examination of the prosecutrix. PW-12 Dr. Anita Thakur, medically examined the prosecutrix. She found that the prosecutrix was pregnant for more than eight months. Prosecutrix delivered a female child on 13.1.2006 at 7.30 AM. ASI Shri Ram (PW-11) went to the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. PW-11/B. An application was filed for taking blood samples of prosecutrix, accused and baby. PW-4 Dr. Satish Kumar took the blood samples of accused, prosecutrix and the baby. He filed biological specimen authentication card for DNA testing Ext. PW- 4/B to Ext. PW-4/D. Blood was taken in test tubes which were sealed with seal impression ‘M’. Seal impression ‘M’ was separately taken on a piece of cloth. Accused was also medically examined by Dr. Satish Kumar. He issued MLC Ext. PW-4/A. Blood samples were deposited at CFSL Calcutta on 30.4.2006. Report is Ext. PA. Genotype profile of baby matched with the genotype profile of accused and genotype profile of prosecutrix. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.
3. Prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Trial Court acquitted the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused person.
5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, has supported the judgment dated 5.7.2011.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully.
7. HHC Gathal Ram (PW-1) deposed that on 30.1.2006, MHC Mahant Ram had handed over three sealed parcels to him with direction to deposit the same at Central Forensic Science Laboratory Calcutta vide RC No. 10/06. He deposited the aforesaid articles at CFSL Calcutta and obtained receipt from the laboratory. He denied the suggestion that the samples were tampered at any stage.
8. Hukam Chand (PW-2) testified that he was posted as Senior Lab Technician at Civil Hospital Karsog with effect from 2003 to 2007. On 27.4.2006, Dr. Satish, Medical Officer Civil Hospital Karsog directed him to take blood sample of Asha Kum
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
