Back
2004 Supreme(P&H) 1286
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Rajpal
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 1997,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 29, 2004
The main legal point established is the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the court's duty to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
Rape - Conviction under Sections 376 and 120B IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 376, IPC Section 120B - The court analyzed the evidence and found that while the prosecution failed to prove guilt against appellant Sumitra, it was fully proved that appellant Raj Pal committed rape on a minor girl. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring justice and concluded that appellant Raj Pal was rightly convicted under Section 376 IPC, while appellant Sumitra was acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Raj Pal and Sumitra appealed against their convictions under Sections 376 and 120B IPC for the rape of a minor girl. The prosecutrix alleged that Raj Pal raped her in connivance with his wife, Sumitra, in their house. The appellants contested the conviction, citing contradictions in the place of occurrence and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there were contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, the evidence proved that Raj Pal committed the rape. It acquitted Sumitra due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the quantum of sentence, reducing Raj Pal's sentence to time already served.
Issues: The key issues were the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, contradictions in the place of occurrence, and the guilt of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of preventing miscarriage of justice and held that despite contradictions, the evidence proved Raj Pal's guilt. It also highlighted the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Final Decision: Appellant Raj Pal was convicted under Section 376 IPC, while appellant Sumitra was acquitted. Raj Pal's sentence was reduced to time already served.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Appellants Raj Pal and his wife Sumitra have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.5.1997 and 12.5.1997, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Bhiwani, vide which Raj Pal has been convicted under Sections 376 and 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Sumitra has been convicted under Section 342/120B IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively.
2. Appellant No. 1 Raj Pal was charged to have committed the rape on prosecutrix Kavita, aged about 13/14 years, in connivance with his wife, appellant No. 2 Sumitra, in his house on 15.2.1995.
3. The FIR in this case was recorded on 17.2.1995 i.e. two days after the alleged occurrence, on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, who in her statement stated that she was 13/14 years of age and studied upto 3rd standard. She further stated that Raj Pal accused was her uncle in relation and his wife to visit their house. On 15.2.1995, accused Sumitra wife of Raj Pal came to their house in the day time and took the prosecutrix to her house on the pretext to iron the clothes. When she went to the house of accused, Raj Pal accused was already present there in the room. Sumitra asked her to close the door, because the persons are looking while passing from there. Thereafter, she went out of the room and bolted the gate from outside at once. The prosecutrix further stated that Raj Pal accused caught hold of her hand and made her lie on a cot. When she raised noise, he put a cloth in her mouth. Thereafter, Sumitra reached outside the gate and the prosecutrix called her, but Raj Pal did not allow her speak. Thereafter, he forcibly committed rape on her against her wishes. After a short while accused Sumitra came outside the room and asked to open the door. Accused Raj Pal replied in positive and gave 3/4 bites on her cheeks and raped her. Thereafter, accused Sumitra opened the door and asked the prosecutrix not to tell about the occurrence to any body. The prosecutrix further stated that she did not tell about the occurrence to any body and kept covering her face with her shawl. On seeing her in fear position, her mother enquired about the reason of her perplexion again and again. She saw her face after removing the shawl and noticed the bites on her face. She enquired about the same. Then she disclosed the whole occurrence to her mother. Thereafter, she was taken to the police, where her statement was recorded.
4. The prosecutrix was medico-legally examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Amrita Bhardwaj, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani, on 17.2.1995 at 4.50 p.m. She noticed the following three injuries on her face :-
1. There was contusion over right cheek, elliptical in shape, in upper part grooved with teeth margin reddish brown in colour.
2. Two semi-circular contusions over right cheek in lower part near angle of mouth 1 cm away from the angle of mouth, 4 cm in length, bluish discolouration in the surrounding area was present.
3. Two in number semi-circular contusion over left cheek near angle of mouth about 2 cm away from angle of mouth.
5. After examination, vaginal swab taken from vagina was sent for chemical examination. In the report of the Chemical Examiner, human semen was detected in vaginal swab. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and charges were framed against both the accused.
6. In support of the allegations, the porsecution examined 12 witnesses. Except Kavita prosecutrix (PW-9) and Sunita (PW-11), all the other witnesses are official witnesses. Chandi Ram and Kitabo, the parents of the prosecutrix, were not examined by the prosecution claiming them to the unnecessary. In their statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., both the accused pleaded false implication, but did not lead any evidence in defence.
7. After considering the evidence, available on the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused. Henc
