Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
Rajesh Kumar @ Lachhu - Appellant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 2020 a/w Cr. Appeals No. 188 and 360 of 2020
Decided on : 10-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Legal Aid Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate, in Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, in all the appeals.
Prosecution must establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; mere reliance on victim’s inconsistent testimony is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3, 4, 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 366A, 120B - Conviction and sentencing of accused for kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor - Appeals filed against conviction - The court held that the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts to support the charges and that contradictions in the victim’s testimony undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Court found the evidence insufficient to uphold the convictions, thus allowing the appeals. (Paras 46-47)
(B) Sexual offences against minors - The courts are required to carefully scrutinize the evidence of child witnesses, ensuring no undue reliance on their testimonies without corroboration unless they are compelling. (Paras 10-12)
(C) Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act - The presumption against the accused applies only if the prosecution establishes foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. Where contradictions occur and the foundational facts are not substantiated, the presumption cannot be invoked. (Paras 32-34)
Facts of the case:
The accused persons were convicted for kidnapping a minor girl and sexually assaulting her, as per the trial court's findings based primarily on the victim's testimony, which was later found inconsistent and uncorroborated.
Findings of Court:
The appeals revealed numerous contradictions in the victim's statements and failures in the prosecution to establish the charges convincingly, leading to a lack of credible evidence to support the convictions.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the adequacy of evidence to sustain the convictions, and the interpretation of the presumption under the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of a child victim must be carefully examined, and that conviction cannot rely solely on a victim's statement when faced with substantial contradictions and lack of corroboration.
Result: Appeals allowed, convictions and sentences set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals are connected to prior convictions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of prosecution's case. (Para 3) |
| 3. evidence presented by prosecution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. defense claims prosecution evidence is false. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. credibility of victim's testimony. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. legal principles regarding testimony of minors. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. testimony of victims analyzed. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. parent testimonies impact case credibility. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. medical evidence review. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 10. legal implications of child witness testimonies. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 11. emerging laws on victim testimonies. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 12. contradictions undermine prosecution case. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 13. need for conclusive evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 14. presumption under pocso act defined. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 15. analysis of foundational facts. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 16. analysis of charges against accused. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 17. requirement of intent for accusations. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 18. prosecution fails to meet burden of proof. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 19. court concludes with acquittal. (Para 46) |
| 20. decision issued to release appellants. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
1. Since all these appeals are the offshoots of impugned judgment dated 25.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 04.03.2020, rendered by learned Special Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”), in Sessions Case No. 12-G/VII/2015, they are being taken up together for disposal.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants/accused persons/convicts under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment of conviction, dated 25.02.2020, and order of sentence dated 04.03.2020, passed by the learned Trial Court, in Sessions Case No. 12-G/VII/2015, whereby accused persons viz., Rajneesh, Rajesh and Ramesh were convicted and sentenced as under: Convict Rajneesh Sr. No. Offence under Fine In
default of
| Sr. No. | Offence under section | Sentence | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
| 1. | 363 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years | Rs.5000/- | Simple imprisonment (SI) for three months |
| 2. | 366/120B IPC | RI for ten years | Rs.10,000/- | SI for six months |
| 3. | 4 of POCSO Act | RI for fifteen years | Rs.10,000/- | SI for six months |
| 4. | 3(1)(xii) of ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | RI for two years | Rs.5000/- | SI for three months |
| 5. | 3(2)(v) of ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | Life imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | SI for six months |
Convict Rajesh
| Sr. No. | Offence under section | Sentence | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
| 1. | 363/120B IPC | RI for five years | Rs.5000/- | SI for three months |
| 2. | 366A/120B IPC | RI for five years | Rs.10,000/- | SI for six months |
| 3. | 4 read with Section 17 of POCSO Act | RI for seven years | Rs.5000/- | SI for three months |
Convict Rajesh who remained in police/judicial remand w.e.f. 17.12.2014 to 31.12.2014 was convicted under Section 202 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by him. All the appellants prayed that their appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set-aside and they be acquitted.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:
3(a). On 13.10.2014, around 08:30 p.m., accused Rajneesh, after conspiring with other co-accused Rajesh, kidnapped the minor victim (name withheld), under the pretext of marrying her, in the vehicle of accused Rajesh, having registration No. HP-01D- 1325, from place Ummar, out of the lawful custody of her parents. Subsequently, accused Rajneesh committed rape with the victim. The father of the victim reported the matter to the police and investigation commenced. During the search operation, both accused Rajneesh and minor victim were found at Jawalamukhi and accused Rajneesh was arrested by the police on 09.12.2014. Police got conducted medical examination of both accused Rajneesh and the victim. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 10.12.2014. On 12.12.2014 police record
