Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, N.S.Shekhawat, JJ.
Manoj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D-825-DB-2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anmol Malik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana., for the Respondent.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the testimonies of witnesses, especially in child rape cases, and the need for proper legal protection for minor victims.

Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 363, 376(2), 302, 365 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence, the testimonies of witnesses, and the plea of alibi. The court emphasizes the importance of child rape cases and the need for proper legal protection for minor victims.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(f), 302, and 365 of the IPC for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor girl. The prosecution's case was based on the testimonies of witnesses and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the failure of the appellant to prove the plea of alibi. The court highlighted the heinous nature of child rape cases and the need for legal protection for minor victims.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witnesses, the plea of alibi, and the nature of child rape cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the testimonies of witnesses, especially in child rape cases, and the need for proper legal protection for minor victims. The court also highlighted the significance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the trial court were upheld.

JUDGMENT

N.S.Shekhawat, J.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 09.08.2012 and the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby the present appellant was held guilty and convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 363, 376(2)(f), 302 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced in the following manner:-

Offence under Section	Sentence
363 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with fine of R.500/-. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
376(2)(f) IPC	Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
302 IPC	Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
365 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and convicted has been set out in detail in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. We need not, therefore, recapitulate the same all over again except to the extent it is required for the disposal of the instant appeal by us.

3. Briefly stated, the FIR in the instant case was lodged on the basis of the statement of PW-2 Sunil Kumar, father of the victim, who met SI/SHO Ravinder Singh PW-12 and submitted one application Ex.P-2. As per the said application, he was a labourer by occupation. The appellant/accused used to work with him about 2-3 years ago. At about 6.00 p.m. on 30.04.2009, the appellant came to his house and kidnapped his minor daughter 'A' (name withheld in view of the provisions contained in Section 228-A of the IPC and in view of the law laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnatka Vs. Puttaraja, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 113), aged about 9 years. The accused took her away on his bicycle and his son Manish PW-3 had seen the appellant, while taking away his daughter 'A'. Thereafter, he and his son Manish made their endeavour to trace out his daughter, but could not succeed. In the early morning on 01.05.2009, the complainant came to know that the dead body of his daughter 'A' was lying in the fields of Narbir resident of Kithwari. He reached the spot and found the dead body of his daughter in nude condition lying there. He raised the suspicion that she had been raped and then murdered by way of strangulation. Her clothes and slippers (chappal) were lying nearby and he prayed for action against the accused. On the basis of his statement, the FIR Ex.PW6/B was registered at Police Station Camp, Palwal under Sections 363, 376(2), 302 of IPC against the present appellant and the police machinery was set into motion.

4. SI/SHO Ravinder Singh PW-12 reached the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-12/B. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also got prepared scaled site plan from the draughtsman and also prepared the Inquest Report Ex.PW8/C. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to General Hospital, Palwal, for conducting the postmortem examination. The appellant was apprehended by the police in the instant case on 08.05.2009, who suffered his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/A, in which, he disclosed that he had kept concealed a bag in the corner of the fields of maize and parked his bicycle on the Railway Station, Palwal, which was used in the commission of offence. After completion of the investigation, PW-12 Ravinder Singh SI/SHO prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the same for