SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(P&H) 1681

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sham Sunder, J.
Dinesh And Etc.
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 1992,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under S. 366, IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: S. 366, IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the prosecution's burden of proof, the evaluation of evidence in sex-related offenses, and the presumption of absence of consent in rape cases under S. 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecutrix, a young girl, was abducted and subjected to repeated sexual assault by the accused. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the family's reluctance to approach the police immediately due to concerns about the family's honor. The prosecutrix's testimony was found to be cogent and trustworthy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of abducting the prosecutrix with the intention of forcing her into illicit intercourse with another accused. The delay in lodging the FIR was deemed insignificant, and the prosecutrix was found to be a victim of sexual violence, not a consenting party.

Issues: The issues included the intention of the accused, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the consent of the prosecutrix.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to evaluate the evidence of the prosecutrix in sex-related offenses and discussed the presumption of absence of consent in rape cases under S. 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were upheld.

Judgment

1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 327-SB of 1992, filed by Dinesh, and Criminal Appeal No. 160-SB of 1994, filed by Munna Lal @ Babbu, accused (now appellants), arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 29-8-1992, and the order of sentence dated 31-8-1992, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad, vide which it convicted Dinesh, accused/appellant, for the offence, punishable under S. 366, IPC, and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months, and convicted Munna Lal @ Babbu, accused /appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 376, IPC, and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of seven years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year.

2. The prosecutrix (her name is not being mentioned in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court and she is being referred to as prosecutrix) aged 18/19 years, is the third child of Gopal. On 12-5-1991, Gopal was away from his house, for some work. His wife, Smt. Phoolwati, along with her daughter, (the prosecutrix), was present, in the house. On that day, in the morning, the mother of the prosecutrix, asked her to accompany her, to the fields, for some agricultural work. She declined, on account of the hot weather outside. She further told her that she will go to nearby Tigaon village, for wearing bangles. This led to a tiff between the mother, and the daughter. It was. stated that the prosecutrix left village Bhainsrawali, for village Tigaon, to wear bangles, at the shop of a Bangle-seller, popularly called Manihar. When she was, in the half way, Dinesh, accused, resident of Bhainsrawali and known to her, met her. He was on his scooter. He offered her a lift, on the scooter, for dropping her, at the place of work of her brother Jagdish, who was employed with Kamla Syntex Faridabad. It was further stated that the prosecutrix took the lift, on the scooter of Dinesh, accused. Dinesh, accused, instead of dropping her, at the place of work of her brother, took her to ISBT, Delhi, and parked his scooter outside the Bus-stand. Munna Lal alias Babbu, accused, a driver by profession met Dinesh, accused, there. They had some conversation. Dinesh, accused, thereafter, handed over the prosecutrix, to Munna Lal, accused, who made her to sit in a three-wheeler, which he himself was driving, and took her to village Asmanpur, Delhi. Dinesh, accused thereafter, disappeared. Munna Lal, accused, kept the prosecutrix, for about a month, and repeatedly raped forcibly. She was also put under fear by Munna Lal, accused, and was not allowed to meet anybody, at village Asmanpur. When Gopal, returned home, in the evening, Phoolwati, narrated her the episode, in the morning. When the prosecutrix, did not return home, in the evening, a search for her, was made at village Tigaon, with relations, and well-wishers. Finding no clue of the prosecutrix, Gopal, lodged a report with the police, on 30-5-1991, about her disappearance. In the meanwhile, Dinesh, accused, contacted the family of Gopal, and offered to search, and bring the prosecutrix, if a sum of Rs. 400/-, was paid to him. This offer was accepted by the family of Gopal. When a sum of Rs. 400/- was arranged, and offered to Dinesh, accused, he declined to accept the money. He, however, did not bring back the prosecutrix, as per promise. On 12-6-1991. Gopal, lodged a formal report, with the police, regarding kidnapping/abduction of the prosecutrix. He suspected Dinesh, accused, for kidnapping/abduction of the prosecutrix. Munna Lal, accused, after keeping the prosecutrix, in his house and repeatedly raping her there, forcibly, brought her to jhuggis, near Bus-stand Ballabhgarh. She was kept there. He repeatedly raped her,

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top