2006 Supreme(All) 2196
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.C.Kandpal
MAKHAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Decided On : 19 August 2006
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 194 of 2004
L.K.TIWARI, R.S.SOAN,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony, the need for sensitivity in cases of sexual assault, and the severity of the crime of rape, especially when perpetrated by family members.
Headnote:
rape - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - 376, 323, 504, 506 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, the medical examination of the prosecutrix, and the corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony. The court emphasizes the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony and the need for sensitivity in cases of sexual assault. The judgment also highlights the severity of the crime of rape and the need for appropriate sentencing.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for the forcible rape of the prosecutrix, who was the daughter of one of the appellants. The prosecutrix and her brother alleged that the appellants had been subjecting her to rape and ill-treatment after the death of their mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of the offense of rape based on the consistent and corroborated testimony of the prosecutrix and her brother. The medical evidence also supported the prosecutrix's allegations. The court emphasized the need for sensitivity in dealing with cases of sexual assault and highlighted the severity of the crime of rape.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the corroboration of her allegations, and the appropriate sentencing for the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony and the need for sensitivity in cases of sexual assault. It also highlighted the severity of the crime of rape and the need for appropriate sentencing, especially in cases involving familial perpetrators.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court, emphasizing the severity of the crime and the need for appropriate sentencing.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this ap peal are that Jagtar Singh and his sis ter Shimali Kaur moved a written com plaint, Ext. Ka. 1 before the S. D. M. Ram Nagar, District Nainital with the allega tions that accused Makhan Singh is the father of complainant Shimali Kaur and the accused Phumman Singh is her un cle. After the death of her mother, both these accused had bad-eye on her for their lust. It was also alleged that the accused used to extract illicit liquor. After taking liquor they used to beat and ill-treat the complainant and her brother and sisters. It was also alleged that the accused persons committed forcible rape upon Shimali Kaur due to which she became pregnant. Jagga Singh, brother of the prosecutrix resides at the house of her maternal grandfa ther in village Tumadia Daam RS. Ram Nagar due to the fear and cruelty com mitted on him by the accused persons. When he came to know about the of fence committed by the accused per sons, he came to Shimali Kaur to fetch her and his younger brother and sisters on 30-/-2003. The accused also beat him. The accused persons thereafter came at the house of maternal uncle and threatened to kill them. The S. D. M. Ramnagar directed the S. O. to investi gate the matter. The S. O. Ramnagar reg istered case against the accused persons vide entry in the G. D. , Ext. Ka-6. S. I. N. R Singh Chauhan investigated the case. He visited the spot and prepared site- plan Ext. Ka. 7. Km. Shimali Kaur was got medically examined. On 13-10-2003 the prosecutrix was given
in the Supurdagi of her maternal grandfather, and prepared memo of supurdagi, Ext. Ka. 8. After completing the investigation, the I. O. submitted charge sheet, Ext. Ka. 9 against the accused persons.
3. On committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges U/ss 376, 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced PW. 1, Km. Shimali, the prosecutrix, P. W. 2 Jagga Singh, brother of the prosecutrix, P. W. 3, Dr. Nupur Sinha, PW. 4, Dr. Harish Lal, Ra diologist, P. W. 5 Mahendra Nath Sharma and P. W. 6, S. I. M. PS. Chauhan, the I. O. of the case.
5. P. W. I, Km. Shimali is the prosecutrix of the case. She has stated on oath that her mother had died 5-6 years ago. She has deposed that she lived with her father the accused Makhan Singh and her uncle accused Phumman in village Bannakheda, Bajpur. Her brother Jagga used to live near Tumadia Daam. She has specifi cally deposed that her father and uncle, the accused persons, subjected her to forcible rape many times. She also deforcible that her house is situate in an iso lated place in the jungle and there is no neighbouring village.
6. P. W. 2, Jagga Singh has deposed that his mother had died five years ago. The accused had turned out him from the house after beating him and he went at the house of his maternal grandfather and he is living there. He further deposed that his sister Shimali was living with the accused persons. When this witness went to his sister, then she told him about the offence of rape committed on her by his father and uncle the accused persons. This witness brought Km. Shimali to Ramnagar and there he got her medi cally examined by the doctor. He also deposed that he had given application at Ramnagar.
7. P. W. 3 Dr. Nupur Sinha has medically examined Km. Shimali on 5-8-2003 in Govt. Hospital Ramnagar. According to this witness Km. Shima