Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Prashant Kumar, Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, JJ.
Kallu Singh Son of Lalta Singh Thakur (In Jail) - Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2012
Decided On : 08-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ran Vijay Singh, M.S. Tomar, Soniya Mishra
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate
The victim's testimony in cases of sexual offences is vital and can be relied upon without corroboration. The presumption of absence of consent in rape cases and the significance of the victim's membership in the Scheduled Caste were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Rape - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 376 IPC, Section 506 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 3(2)(v)
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a minor, was raped by the accused in a sugarcane field. The delay in lodging the first information report was satisfactorily explained by the victim's father. The victim's testimony was found to be reliable and trustworthy, and the medical evidence corroborated her statement. The court also considered the victim's membership in the Scheduled Caste and the accused's knowledge of this fact.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of rape under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the first information report, discrepancies in the victim's age, and the lack of independent witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of the victim's testimony, the presumption of absence of consent in rape cases, and the significance of the victim's membership in the Scheduled Caste in convicting the accused under Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The judgment and order of the trial court were confirmed, and the accused was directed to serve the sentence imposed.
Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Misra holding brief of Ms. Soniya Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned AGA.
2. Instant appeal has arisen against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Unnao in Sessions Trial No.628 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2006, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Safipur, District Unnao whereby accused-appellant Kallu Singh was convicted under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/-, under Section 506 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2500/-with default stipulation of additional imprisonment for three years and six months’ respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. According to the prosecution version, a first information report was lodged by Manohar Lal Raidas father of the victim on 26.8.2006 at 12.10 AM at Police Station Safipur, District-Unnao stating that he is cultivating the field of Sri Krishan on lease on crop sharing basis. Crop of Maize was sown. On 23.8.2006 at about 9.00 AM when the victim aged about 14 years was sitting on the ‘Machan’ in the field, accused-Kallu came and asked the victim to get down and pushed her down by catching her leg. He took her to nearby sugarcane field and committed rape upon her. He threatened that if she will narrate the incident to anyone he would kill his family members. Accused ran away from the scene of incident. Victim came her house and narrated the story to her father. Complainant, Manohar Lal Raidas, father of the complainant, went in the field but the accused ran away after seeing them. First information report was lodged on 26.8.2006 under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Investigation was handed over to investigating officer. Victim was medically examined on 26.8.2006 at S.D.W. Hospital, Unnao. Vaginal smear was taken for further examination. Site plan was prepared. Statements of victim and witnesses were recorded. Victim was sent for X-ray for assessment of her age which was reported to be 12 years on the basis of X-ray. After concluding investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused.
4. Accused was charged under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case prosecution has produced P.W.1 Victim, P.W.2 complainant Manohar Lal Raidas, P.W. 3 Dr. Rachna Saxena, who had medico legally examined the victim on 26.8.2006 and opined that no mark of external injuries was found. Vaginal smear was taken out. Hymen was found torn. Dead sperms were found. Doctor opined that she has been subjected to rape. On the basis of supplementary report her age was assessed as 12 years. P.W. 4 Circle Officer Arun Kumar Srivastava is investigating officer while P.W.5 constable Moharir Uma Shankar is formal witness, P.W.6 Dr. R.C. Bhatt radiologist has conducted the X-ray of the victim.
6. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused has stated that all the witnesses have given false statement. D.W.1 Gayan Prakash Principal of Prathmik Vidhyalay, Bamhana, Safipur, District Unnao is produced who has proved the admission register of one Savitri.
7. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court has placed reliance upon the statement of P.W.1 victim. Learned trial court has also placed reliance upon the Statement of doctor who has opined that the victim was subjected to rape. Accordingly, learned trial court has recorded a finding of conviction against the accused.
8
