Back
2005 Supreme(P&H) 329
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Virender Singh, J.
Ramphal
Versus
State Of Haryana
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 498 of 1994,
Decided On : MARCH 2, 2005
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence, the credibility of witness testimony, and the burden of proof in criminal cases.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under sections 376 and 506 IPC - [IPC 376, IPC 506] - The court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment discussed the age of the prosecutrix, medical evidence, and the defense plea, ultimately concluding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a 12-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted by the appellant. The delay in lodging the FIR, the age of the prosecutrix, and the medical evidence were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the testimony of the prosecutrix, medical evidence, and lack of credible defense. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained and did not weaken the prosecution's case.
Issues: Delay in lodging the FIR, age of the prosecutrix, medical evidence, and defense plea.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and lack of credible defense to confirm the appellant's conviction.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under sections 376 and 506 IPC, upheld the sentence of seven years, and ordered the fine to be converted into compensation for the prosecutrix.
Virender Singh, J.
1. Appellant Ramphal alias Dholu stands as convicted under sections 376 and 506 IPC vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 12/14.9.1994. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment to further undergo RI for six months under Section 476 IPC and RI for one year under Section 506 IPC. The recovery of fine was ordered to be paid as compensation. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. Prosecutrix is the daughter of Ram Parkash PW6. Her name is not being disclosed in the light of the observations made in a very latest judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, 2004(1) All India Criminal LR (S.C.) 308. She will be described as prosecutrix only.
3. On the date of occurrence. i.e. 1.11.1992 the age of the prosecutrix was 12 years and about a month. The exact date of birth as per certificate Ex. PC proved by Amrit Lal PW3, is 12.10.1980.
4. The prosecution case runs as follows.
5. Ram Parkash with his wife had gone to village Mokhra in connection with death ceremony of the maternal grand mother of the prosecutrix and when at about 4 PM, she had gone to the fields of one Bhira Jat for collecting fodder, the appellant appeared at the spot and forcibly pounced upon her. He opened the string of her Salwar, put his one hand on her month and made her to lie on the ground and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix became unconscious. The allegation is that the appellant thereafter left the spot. When the prosecutrix regained consciousness and was going back to her house, he threatened her of dire consequences, in case she disclosed the incident to anybody. It is then alleged that on the next date, Ram Parkash had come back to the village but the prosecutrix did not disclose anything to him and when her mother returned from village Mokhra after three days, she disclosed the incident to her. The father of the prosecutrix consequently was apprised of as to what had happened with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, on 7.11.1992, the prosecutrix was taken to the Police Station when on the way ASI Punjab Singh PW 10 met them at Bus Stand Bawani Khera as he was present there in connection with patrol duty. Her statement Ex.PG was recorded. A ruqa was sent by ASI Punjab Singh for recording of the formal FIR upon which formal FIR Ex. PG/2 was recorded in the concerned Police Station. She was medico legally examined on the same day by Dr. Meena Barwar PW9. Spot inspection was also done by the Investigating Officer. The statements of other witnesses were recorded. On 9.11.1992, the appellant was produced by one Nandali son of Santu. He was formally arrested. He was medico-legally examined by Dr. O.P. Charaya PW 1 on 10.11.1992. After the completion of the Investigation, the challan was filed against the appellant. He was charged under Sections 376 and 506 IPC for which he has now suffered the conviction. Hence, this appeal.
6. The case of the prosecution mainly hinges on the statement of the prosecutrix (PW5), her father Ram Parkash PW6. The prosecutrix has disclosed on oath the entire incident happened with her. Ram Parkash her father (PW6) has also stated that after her wife had come back from Mokhra, everything was disclosed to him by the prosecutrix and his wife and thereafter he took his daughter for lodging the First Information Report with the police. The medical evidence is to the effect that when the prosecutrix was examined on 7.11.1992 by Dr. Meena Barwar PW9, she noticed that her hymen was torn, margin was ragged, tenderness was there. It bled on touch also. She had opined on an application Ex.PH moved by the prosecution agency to the effect that all the findings were suggestive of the fact that intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix. The medical examination of the appellant also indicates that he was capable of doing intercourse.
7. Th
