Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Jagdish - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 831 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Sexual Offences - Conviction under Section 376 IPC, Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 - 376(2)(i) IPC, 4 of POCSO Act, 3 of SC/ST Act
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a minor, was raped by the accused while delivering food to her mother in the fields. The accused was convicted and sentenced under various sections including Section 376 IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act, and Section 3 of SC/ST Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix and forensic reports, to be conclusive and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentencing of the accused.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the presence of semen on the victim's clothing, the location of the incident, and the absence of the victim's parents as witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the prosecutrix's consistent testimony, forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the reluctance of the victim's parents to testify due to their dependence on the accused for work. The court also dismissed discrepancies in the evidence as immaterial.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentencing of the accused under various sections, including Section 376 IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act, and Section 3 of SC/ST Act, were upheld.
Key Points: - The prosecution’s evidence, including prosecutrix’s testimony and forensic/DNA reports, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) - Semen presence on salwars and DNA matching to the accused supported the prosecution’s case, while lack of amplification on one item was addressed. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court upheld conviction and concurrent sentences under 376 IPC, 4 of POCSO Act, and 3 of SC/ST Act, noting minor contradictions were immaterial and witnesses’ reluctance could not derail the case. (!) (!) (!) - Size and location of the occurrence and defense challenges to the place of incident were considered but did not undermine the verdict. (!) (!) (!) - The absence of parental testimony was addressed with other corroborative evidence and the minor status of the prosecutrix established. (!) (!) - Caste verification and documentary evidence supported status as a Scheduled Caste individual for purposes of the POCSO/SC/ST proceedings. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2017/25.07.2017 rendered by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Court for Heinous Crimes against Women, Hisar in Sessions Case No.136- SC of 2015, whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Offence under Section | Rigorous imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
| 376(2)(i) IPC | 14 years | 10,000/- | Two months |
| 4 of POCSO Act | 10 years | 5,000/- | One month |
| 3 of SC/ST Act | 3 years | 5,000/- | One month |
2. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 02.09.2015 complainant/prosecutrix (name withheld to conceal her identity) alongwith her family members visited the police station and got recorded her statement to the police in the presence of Ms.Rekha Mittal, Legal Aid Counsel alleging therein that she was 7th class pass and used to do labour work. She was unmarried. On 31.08.2015 at about 9.00 AM Sunita wife of Jagdish son of Sheo Chand (appellant), resident of Gaibipur came to her house and took her mother to her fields to pick up the cotton crop. While leaving the house, her mother asked the prosecutrix to get meals for her to the fields. At about 10.30 a.m. the prosecutrix was taking the meals for her mother to the fields of accused. But she did not know the exact location of the fields. Therefore, she asked the accused about the location of his fields but accused intentionally did not disclose the exact location of his fields. Rather he sent her to the wrong location to mislead her. Accused reached there prior to prosecutrix. When, the prosecutrix reached near the said field, he caught hold of her and gagged her mouth with her chunni. Thereafter, he committed rape with her. He also threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed about the incident to anybody. Due to fear, she did not disclose about the incident to anybody. However on the next day i.e., 01.09.2015 she was suffering from fever. On being asked by her aunt-Banto she disclosed about the incident to her. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police. On the basis of this statement FIR was registered. The matter was investigated. Prosecutrix was produced before the Magistrate and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused was arrested. Medical examination of accused as well as that of prosecutrix was got conducted. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The samples collected at the time of medical examination were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, challan was presented to the court.
4. The prosecution examined number of witnesses in its support. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. The salwar which was recovered by the police on 06.09.2015 was the salwar of his wife. The color of that salwar was dark brown and green.
5. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as referred to above. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and record.
7. Pw1 the prosecutrix deposed that she did not know her date of birth. She was studying in seventh class. She had left studies in seventh month of year 2015 and had again taken admission in school in January, 2016. On 31.08.2015, at around 9.00 a.m. Sunita wife of Jagdish (app
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
