Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jitendra Chauhan, Archana Puri, JJ.
Kamaljit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-D-1619-DB-2014
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Ms.Monita Mehta, Advocate for the appellant; Mr.Amar Ashok Pathak, Addl.AG, Punjab
The judgment emphasizes the need for careful scrutiny of evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations, and highlights the possibility of false implication in rape cases.
Headnote:
Rape - Conviction under 376 IPC, 506 IPC, and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act - [376 IPC, 506 IPC, 4 of POCSO Act] - The court acquitted the accused of the charge of raping his daughter based on inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, lack of medical evidence, and the possibility of false implication.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a minor, accused her father of raping her. The father was convicted based on the prosecutrix's statement and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, lack of medical evidence, and the possibility of false implication, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused father had raped his daughter or if the accusation was a result of false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness, especially in cases involving serious allegations. It highlighted the possibility of false implication in rape cases and the need for corroborative evidence.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the charge of raping his daughter due to inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements, lack of medical evidence, and the possibility of false implication.
JUDGMENT
Jitendra Chauhan, J. - The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.8.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| U/ss | Sentence |
| 376 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and to pay fine of Rs. Four lakh. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years |
| 506 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year |
| 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. One lakh. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the matter as narrated in paras 2 & 3 of the impugned judgment are as under:-
"..on 12.08.2013, ASI Inderjit Singh (Investigating Officer) was present at police station Sadar, Hoshiarpur. He received a telephone message from Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur that prosecutrix (name of prosecutrix not disclosed in order to conceal her identity) daughter of Kamaljit Singh is admitted in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur in a rape case. The Investigating Officer along with other police officials reached at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where doctor declared the prosecutrix fit to make statement. The prosecutrix got recorded her statement before ASI Inderjit Singh to the effect that she is resident of Street No.6, Bains Colony, Una Road Bajwara Kalan, PS Sadar Hoshiarpur. She is a student of 7 th Class in Government School at Salempur, District Hoshiarpur. She is residing with her maternal-grand parents. Her mother had died on 13.02.2012. She along with her younger brother namely Jasmeet Singh aged 11 years used to reside with her father Kamaljit Singh. During life time of her mother, her father Kamaljit Singh used to take her in his lap and used to tease with bad intention. Her father committed rape with her without her consent. She disclosed to her mother regarding this act of accused. Her father started giving threats that in case they told about it to anybody then they will be eliminated. Her father continuously committed rape with her in the absence of mother. After the death of her mother, he used to give a tablet and also threatened her with dire consequences. The prosecutrix told to her maternal grandmother that she does not want to live with her father and wants to live with her maternal grandmother. On 01.12.2012, her maternal-grandmother took her to village Salempur where her grandmother got her admitted in a school in 6 th standard. On severe pain in her abdomen, she told the entire episode to her maternal grandmother and she got her admitted in civil hospital for treatment. Action be taken against Kamaljit Singh.
3. The statement of prosecutrix was read over to her and she signed the same. The Investigating Officer made endorsement Ex.PW7/B on the said statement and was sent to police station through PHG Davinder Singh for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW7/C was recorded by SI Gurmail Singh, who also made endorsement Ex.PW7D underneath his endorsement."
3. After investigation, challan was presented against the present appellant. He was charge sheeted under Section 376, 506 IPC and Section 9 of POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, PWl Dr.Sona Aadia, PW2 Dr.Hardeep Singh, PW3 Dr.RP Saroa, PW4 the prosecutrix, PW5 Nathu Ram, Superintendent, PW6 Kanta Rani, PW7 ASI Inderjit Singh and PW8 Ms. Lakhwinder Kaur, ACJM, Hoshiarpur.
5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied all the incriminating circ
