Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Naheed Ara Moonis, Anil Kumar-IX, JJ.
Surendra - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5375 of 2010
Decided On : 18-12-2019
For the Appellant : Sanjiv Singh, Animesh Chatterjee, Apul Mishra, Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Chetan Chatterjee, Namwar Singh, Yogesh Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the gravity of the crime of rape, the reliance on prompt FIR, credible eyewitness testimonies, and corroboration with medical evidence to establish guilt, and the need to consider the impact on the victim and society.
Headnote:
Rape - Criminal Law - Section 376 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a 2-½ to 3-year-old girl. The incident was reported by the informant, who witnessed the appellant committing the crime and caught him with the help of others. The victim was medically examined, and the injuries on her private parts corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The appellant claimed to be falsely implicated and demanded an opportunity to present evidence in his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eyewitness testimonies of the informant and another witness to be credible and reliable. The medical evidence supported the prosecution's version of the incident. The court dismissed the appellant's claims of false implication and lack of evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the medical evidence, and the promptness of the FIR. The appellant's claim of false implication and lack of evidence was also considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the promptness of the FIR, the credibility of the eyewitnesses, and the corroboration of their testimonies with medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court also emphasized the gravity of the crime and the impact on the victim and society.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 376 IPC and dismissed the appeal, upholding the life imprisonment sentence. The court emphasized the seriousness of the crime and the need to consider the victim's plight and the societal impact.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar-IX, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 20.09.2003 passed by Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) Court No. 14, Mathura in Session Trial No. 972 of 2002, (State Vs. Surendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2002, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Raya, District Mathura, whereby sole appellant Surendra has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-under Section 376 I.P.C., with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant Chandra Pal has lodged first information report on 05.02.2002 at 01.15 P.M. at P.S. Raya, District Mathura alleging therein that on 05.02.2002 at about 12.00 noon he was going towards Raya from his village Gonga. At about 12.30 P.M. when he reached near the field of Charan Singh, on hearing the shrieks of a child from the field of Charan Singh, he stopped there and went to that field. When he reached there, he saw that appellant/accused was committing rape on an innocent girl child of about 2-½ to 3 years. There was blood on the spot and the child was lying in a pool of blood. At that moment, Murari s/o Masi, Pappu s/o Bagari both resident of village Gonga and Jagveer s/o of Nekse resident of Dhaku also reached there. Seeing them, the accused/appellant tried to escape from there but they caught him on the spot after applying some force. The victim was in very serious condition. There were injuries with blood on private part of the victim. On being asked accused/appellant told his name as Surendra s/o Shanker Singh Bhat @ Sunil Bhati resident of Gokleshwar, District Dharchula (Nepal). Some persons living on the side of the road near the railway station told them the name and father's name of the victim and also told them that her parents were searching her for a long time. The informant Chandra Pal along with other persons brought the victim and the accused/appellant to the Police Station Raya and lodged the first information report by giving his written report Ext. Ka-1 which was scribed by Rakesh Bansal s/o Kishan Lal Bansal resident of Hathras road Raya, Mathura. The entry was made in general diary (G.D.) of Police Station vide Report No.20 at 13.15 hours on 05.02.2002 by Sri Vijay Singh (PW 4) and investigation was handed over to PW 5, Sub-Inspector Indra Pal Singh Tomar.
3. After registration of the first information report at Police Station the victim was sent to the government hospital with lady Constable Sushma of P.S. Raya for her treatment and medical examination. She was medically examined on 05.02.2002 by Dr. Sunita Majumdar Medical Officer Women Hospital, Agra and prepared injury report (Ext. Ka-6). According to the injury report Ext. Ka-6 she was of average built, weak condition pulse 110 per minute, there was no mark of injury anywhere on the external body surface. In internal examination, vagina admits little finger easily. Vagina smear prepared and sent for pathological examination. Injuries noted are as follows:
(i) Left lateral vaginal tear at 5 o' clock position 1cm in length, breath 0.3 MM, muscle deep bleeding present. This tear was stitched bleeding on this side was controlled.
(ii) Right lateral vaginal tear at 7 o'clock position
(a) Skin tear externally 1.5cmx 0.3cm
(b) muscle deep extending internally (apex could not traced) bleeding present tight vaginal packing done duration of injuries 1 and 2 about 6 hours.
Victim was advised to admit in district female hospital for examination of injuries and primary T/T Sedation, X-ray of right wrist including carpels and right elbow for age determination, vaginal smear for pathological examination to ascertain the presence of spermatozoa and spermatic fluid, victim was referred to S.N. Medical College, Agra for the repair and further T/T of injury no.2 which could not be stitched due to lack of proper pediatric anesthesia. There was no other medical examination report or x-ray report of the victim on record as was advi
