IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Dharmender @ Dholiya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 325 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Conviction under Section 6 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented under Section 164 Cr.P.C., medico-legal examination, and the FSL report. The court also refers to the legal principles established in Sunil v. State of M.P. and State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai regarding the importance of DNA testing and absence of smegma in cases of sexual assault.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim, a 2 1/4-year-old girl, was allegedly sexually assaulted by the accused, leading to the filing of a formal FIR and subsequent investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although the witnesses turned hostile, the evidence presented, including the medico-legal examination and the FSL report, indicated the possibility of sexual assault. The court emphasized the significance of the absence of smegma and the importance of other material evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the absence of certain material witnesses, and the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the victim. The failure to conduct a DNA test was also raised as an issue by the appellant's counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statements made by the victim's mother and father before the police, the medico-legal examination report, and the FSL report to establish the occurrence of sexual assault. The court also emphasized the legal principles established in Sunil v. State of M.P. and State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai regarding the importance of DNA testing and absence of smegma in cases of sexual assault.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 06/07.03.2017 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Narnaul in Sessions Case No.04 of 2016 whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein for short 'the Act'), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three years. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 20.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm Jyoti wife of Raj Kumar resident of village Sehlang, P.S. Kanina accompanied by her husband, daughter- the victim and others came to the police station. Her statement was recorded in the presence of Legal Advisor Ajnesh Yadav. She stated that she has two children. Vipin (son) aged about 6 years is elder and the victim (daughter) aged about 2 1/4 years. That day at about 5.00 pm she was preparing for cooking the meals. She sent both her children to bring sugar from the shop in the village. Her son Vipin came back with sugar and disclosed that his sister had been caught hold of by 'Baba' whose name he disclosed as Dharmender @ Dholiya. She searched for her daughter but in vain. Her maternal nephew Moni went in search of her daughter and brought her home. She was stained with blood. She pacified her daughter and asked her as to what had happened. Her daughter pointed towards her private parts and stated that 'Baba' had beaten her there. She suspected that Dharmender @ Dholiya had committed some wrong act against her daughter. On the basis of her statement formal FIR under Section 4/ 6 of the POCSO Act was registered. The victim was got medico-legally examined. Statement of complainant Jyoti under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. Dharmender @ Dholiya was arrested on 21.03.2016. He was got medico-legally examined. Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The samples collected during medicolegal examination of the victim as well as Dharmender were sent to FSL Madhuban. On completion of investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and furnished in Court.
3. 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. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.
4. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as referred to above. Hence, this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and record.
6. Pw1 Lady ASI Sharda Devi stated that on 20.3.2016 she was posted in Women Police Station Narnaul. That day on receiving information from MHC Women PS Narnaul regarding wrongful act committed on a lady she along with LHC Sheetal, EHC Bimla reached Police Station Kanina where Jyoti wife of Raj Kumar mother of the victim was present. She recorded her statement in the presence of legal advisor Ajnesh Yadav. After recording the statement she recorded the formal FIR Ex.PW1/A and sent the special report through G-mail. As the lady Medical Officer CHC Kanina was not on duty she got the the medico- legal examination of the victim conducted by Lady doctor Nisha Yadav of GH Mohindergarh. After medical examination the doctor handed over the parcels of victim which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/D. Next day she visited the place of occurrence and on the pointing of mother of victim she prepared the rough sketch plan of the place where the rape was committed upon her daughter. On 25.03.2016 she moved an application Ex.PW1/F to JMIC Mohindergarh for recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of prosecutrix's mother, i.e, Jyoti. She proved certified copy of statement Ex.PW
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.