Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4136
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Pawan Kumar - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 1246 of 2015
Decided On : 19-12-2018
N.S. Shekhawat, Adv., Shubhra Singh, Adv.
The judgment establishes the principle that witness testimonies, medical evidence, and contextual interpretation of evidence are crucial in proving criminal offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offences under Sections 306, 376, 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 306, 376, 34; POCSO Act Sections 4, 6
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of appellants Pawan Kumar and Geeta Devi for offences under Sections 306, 376, 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution's case was based on the suicide of the victim, allegedly due to rape by Pawan Kumar and illicit relations between Geeta Devi and Pawan Kumar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, supported by witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the suicide note. The court dismissed the appeal and revoked the bail order for Geeta Devi.
Issues: The key issues included the proof of rape and illicit relations, the authenticity of the suicide note, and the culpability of the appellants in the victim's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the suicide note to establish the guilt of the appellants. It also considered the societal context for not reporting the offences earlier and the interpretation of the suicide note.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed upon appellant Pawan Kumar was ordered to run concurrently. The bail order for appellant Geeta Devi was revoked, and she was directed to surrender before the trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sharma, J. - Though the application filed by appellant no.1- Pawan Kumar was listed for suspension of sentence but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal itself was heard on merits.
2. The present appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 6.4.2015 and order dated 13.4.2015, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Sessions Case No. 25RT of 2013/ 2014, vide which the appellants Pawan Kumar and Geeta Devi, were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 376, 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. They were convicted and sentenced under Section 306/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three month. Accused Pawan Kumar was also convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that complainantJaswant Singh (grand-father of the deceased) filed a complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Dharuhera to the effect that on 27.5.2013 at about 7.23 P.M., he received a telephonic call from the mother of the deceased (name withheld) that the victim had committed suicide. Thereafter, he reached the house. He saw that the victim was lying on the cot. This incident was the outcome of illicit relations between the mother of the deceased and Pawan Kumar @ Banti. Name of deceased's mother is Geeta Devi. FIR, Ex.PV, was registered. Post mortem examination was conducted. Suicide note, Ex.PP, was also recovered from the spot. It was sent to FSL, Madhuban for comparison with the handwriting of the deceased. Photographs of the spot were also taken. Investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and supported the judgment and order of the learned Court below.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.
7. Pw1 Jaswant Singh has testified that he received a phone call from Geeta Devi wife of Satish Kumar on 27.5.2013 at about 7.23 A.M. that his grand-daughter had committed suicide by hanging. He informed the police. He reached the spot along with the police and saw that dead-body of victim was lying on the cot. There was dispute between Satish Kumar and Geeta Devi. Satish was residing with him. The cause of dispute between Satish Kumar and Geeta Devi was that Pawan Kumar was residing with Geeta Devi. He had developed illicit relation with Geeta Devi. On 22.4.2011, Geeta Devi had given in writing that in future she will not indulge in these activities. However, Geeta Devi continued living with Pawan Kumar. She did not mend her ways. The deceased used to live with Geeta Devi. On 20.5.2013, the victim had also told him about the rape. On 25.5.2013, the victim had made a telephonic call to him and asked to come to the residence. He could not go. On 27.5.2013, he received information about suicide committed by the victim. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he served as a teacher. The distance between the Police Station, Dharuhera and house of Geeta Devi is about two kilometers. He further deposed that on 27.5.2013, Pawan alias Banti was seen at the house of Geeta Devi.
8. Pw2 Satish Kumar is t
