Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 213
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
Bhoop Singh – Applicant
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S No. 553 of 2000
Decided on : 07/01/2015
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of determining the prosecutrix's age, assessing consent in the context of alleged offences, and interpreting medical evidence to establish the lack of resistance or injury.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Indian Penal Code - 363, 366, 376 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the age of the prosecutrix, consent, and evidence of medical examination. The court emphasized the importance of determining the age of the prosecutrix and the significance of consent in the context of the alleged offences. The interpretation of medical evidence and its impact on establishing consent were key factors influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and rape of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, a minor, was allegedly kidnapped and subjected to sexual assault by the appellant over a period of time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix and highlighted the absence of resistance and injury, suggesting the prosecutrix's consent.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the age of the prosecutrix, consent, and the evidence of medical examination. The court deliberated on the sufficiency of evidence to establish the prosecutrix's age and the presence of consent in the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of medical evidence, the absence of conclusive proof of the prosecutrix's age, and the lack of resistance or injury, indicating possible consent. These factors led to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charges.
Appellant, namely, Bhoop Singh, has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 24.05.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which, the appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 363, IPC, sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 366, IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 376, IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case in hand, recorded by the learned trial Court are that, on 24.11.1998, Attar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-10) along with other police officials was present at Hansi Chowk, Barwala for patrolling and crime checking. Complainant Dev Dutt (PW-12) met the police party there and moved application Ex.PK. It was submitted by the complainant in his application that he had five children out of which four were daughters and youngest child was the son. Madhu was the eldest and younger to Madhu was the prosecutrix (PW-13), who was aged about 14 years and was student of 8th class. His children including the prosecutrix used to stay and sleep in the Nohra where his uncle Veer Bhan also used to sleep. On the intervening night of 23/24.11.1998, the prosecutrix and other children after doing study work slept in the Nohra as usual. At about 1/1.30 a.m., when his uncle Veer Bhan woke up he found the prosecutrix missing from her cot. Then, he informed him about that fact. He and his family members searched for the prosecutrix in the night but could not know about her whereabouts. He suspected that the accused had kidnapped his daughter.
3. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused-appellant was presented before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. Since, the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar, to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial vide order dated 20.02.1999. The charge was framed against the accused-appellant vide order dated 08.03.1999, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Satnarain Gupta as PW1, Ajit Singh, Patwari as PW2, Dr. Arun Gupta as PW3, Constable Jagdish Kumar as PW4, Ranjana Sabharwal as PW5, Dr. Himani Gupta as PW6, Dr. B.L. Bagri as PW7, Constable Dharambir as PW8, SI Kailash Chander as PW9, ASI Attar Singh as PW10, HC Mukat Ram as PW11, Dev Dutt as PW12, the prosecutrix as PW13 and ASI Hawa Singh as PW14.
5. After the conclusion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and the entire incriminating evidence which the prosecution produced against him was put to him to tender explanation for the same. The appellant-accused pleaded his innocence and he also stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, no defence evidence has been led by the appellant-accused.
6. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as under:
Under Section 363 of IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Under Section 366 of IPC
