Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Anil Kumar, Rajnish Kumar, JJ.
Pramod Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2012
Decided On : 21-12-2018
For the Appellant : Jail Appeal, Abdul Rafey Siddiqui, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborating evidence in sexual offense cases, the duty of the court to handle such cases with utmost sensitivity, and the need to establish the offense under the relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act - [Criminal Procedure Code, Section 372(2)] - [Sections 376/504/506 I.P.C., Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act] - The court discussed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the need for the evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the importance of the victim's testimony in sexual offense cases and the duty of the court to handle such cases with utmost sensitivity. The judgment acquitted the accused-appellant based on the lack of corroborating evidence and the failure to establish the offense under the SC/ST Act.
Fact of the Case:
The victim was returning home when she was allegedly raped and threatened by the accused-appellant. The medical report did not fully corroborate the victim's testimony, and there were allegations of enmity and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence led by the prosecution was not corroborated by the medical examination and the testimony of witnesses. It deemed the trial court's finding as perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the applicability of the SC/ST Act in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroborating evidence in sexual offense cases and the failure to establish the offense under the SC/ST Act. It also highlighted the duty of the court to handle such cases with utmost sensitivity.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order convicting the accused-appellant were set aside. The accused-appellant was acquitted, and the fine, if realized, was to be refunded. The court directed the lower court's record to be sent back and discharged the sureties and bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar, J.
Heard Shri Abdul Rafey Siddiqui, learned counsel for the Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Chandra Sekhar, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 372 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (here-in-after referred as Cr.P.C.) by the accused-appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.839 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2009 under Sections 376/504/506 I.P.C. read with section 3 (1) (12) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (here-in-after referred as SC/ST Act) and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to Police Station-Dewa, District-Barabanki, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2) (5) SC/ST Act.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix/victim, resident of Rendua Palhari, P.S. Deva, District-Barabanki, on 24.02.2009 at about 7:00 p.m. was returning home from Palhari Chauraha after buying medicine from the dispensary. While she was on the way, the accused-appellant all of sudden came from behind, caught hold her mouth by one hand from behind and by other hand dragged her in the side of canal and forcibly committed rape and thereafter threatened her with the following words :-
^^lkyh ikflu vxj fdlh ls dgk rks tku ls ekj nsaxsA^^
4. Thereafter, the victim had told the said incident to her brother-in-law/Mathura Prasad.
5. On 25.02.2009, F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant/victim registered as Case Crime No.111 of 1909 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. And Section 3 (1) (12) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, at P.S.-Devan, District-Barabanki. After lodging of the F.I.R., on the same day, medical examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. Nirupma Singh, District Women Hospital, Barabanki, which reads as under :-
“MI – Leucodermal marks both hand an both legs, over neck.
Tatoomark over Rt arm
Height 140 cm. wt. 45 kg.
Maenopaus 5 yrs. Back.
External examination- No mark of injury over body
Internal examination-No mark of injury over private parts. Vegenial smear taken on two slide for spermatozoa and
Illegible.
Vegina admitting two finger easily.”
6. On 25.02.2009, P.W.-4/Dharmendra Kumar, the then Circle Officer, City, had investigated the aforesaid case and prepared the site plan as Ext. No.4. The charge sheet was submitted by him.
7. On 23.06.2009 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki committed the case to the court of Sessions by means of the order dated 23.06.2009 and sent the documents to the Sessions Court. On the basis of the same, Sessions Trial No.839 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No.111/2009 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (12) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act was registered. The Sessions Court had framed five charges against the accused/appellant. The charges were denied by the appellant and he prayed for trial.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced following witnesses :-
P.W.-1/Complainant/victim, P.W.-2/Mathura Prasad, P.W.-3/Dr. Niurpama Singh, P.W.-4/Dhramendra Kumar, Superintendent of Police and P.W.-5/Arvind Kumar.
9. The accused-appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied his guilt and stated that the false evidence has been given against him on account of enmity.
10. Subsequently the charge was amended vide order dated 29.08.2011 in view of allegations of Section 376 IPC. Consequently charge under Section 3 (1) (12) SC/ST Act was converted into Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act. The accused had no objection on it and he stated that he does not want to cross-examine any witness or produce any evidence.
11. The trial court after considering the documentary and oral evidence adduced before it convicted the accused appellant and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 376 I.P.C.
