State of U. P. vs Dharma - 2022 Supreme(All) 251

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Suneet Kumar, Vikram D. Chauhan, JJ.
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Dharma – Respondent
Government Appeal No. - 1450 of 1989
Decided On : 14-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Vinay Saran, Virendra Saran

Headnote:
RAPE - Criminal Law - Section 376 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 376 IPC - The court discussed the prosecution's failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the rejection of the victim's testimony as tutored, and the negligence of the medical expert in providing a timely opinion on the point of rape and duration of injury. The court highlighted the settled legal position that the evidence of a rape victim stands at par with the evidence of an injured witness and the importance of the victim's testimony and medical evidence in cases of sexual assault. The court emphasized the need for a sterling witness and the reliance on the testimony of the victim if found credible and trustworthy. The judgment set aside the trial court's decision and convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC, sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the victim.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an appeal against the acquittal of the accused-respondent in a rape case where the victim, a 10-year-old girl, alleged that the accused had committed the offence. The trial court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the rejection of the victim's testimony as tutored.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim's testimony was credible and trustworthy, supported by medical evidence, and rejected the trial court's decision. It emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony and medical evidence in cases of sexual assault and set aside the trial court's decision, convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the rejection of the medical expert's opinion, and the prosecution's failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a sterling witness and the reliance on the testimony of the victim if found credible and trustworthy. It highlighted the importance of the victim's testimony and medical evidence in cases of sexual assault and set aside the trial court's decision, convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC.
Final Decision: The government appeal was allowed, and the accused-respondent was held guilty under Section 376 IPC, sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the victim. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Goswami, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25 February 1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 784 of 1988 (State vs. Dharmu alias Dharam Singh) arising from Case Crime No. 183 of 1988, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Kannauj, District Farrukhabad, whereby, accused-respondent was acquitted.

3. As per prosecution case FIR came to be lodged on 21.05.1988 at 18:40 hours, alleging that daughter of the complainant, aged about 10 years, had gone out at 10:00 a.m. to graze goats, accused reached at the field where accused caught hold of his daughter and dropped her on the ground holding her mouth and committed offence of rape. The persons passing nearby exhorted the accused, he thereafter ran away. It is further alleged that the victim was bleeding from her private part; on return, to the house after selling bangles, complainant was informed of the incident.

4. The victim was medically examined on 22.05.1988 at 3:00 p.m. Supplementary medical report was prepared after receiving the x-ray report; age of the victim was assessed 9 years; in the opinion of the medical expert, rape was committed 24 to 30 hours earlier.

5. The charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused respondent under Section 376 IPC. The accused respondent was summoned to stand trial. In defence, he denied the allegations and demanded trial. No defence witness was produced. The Trial Court acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court reached a finding that the victim was tutored and that the time of the alleged incident as per the medical expert opinion does not corroborate with the alleged time of the incident.

6. Prosecution to prove the charge examined in all 5 witnesses of fact; complainant, Ram Sewak (PW-1), father of the victim, victim (PW-2), Dr. P. Singh (PW-3), S.I. A.K. Singh (PW-4), Head Moharrir Ganga Prasad (PW-5).

7. The following documents were exhibited:

1.	F.I.R.	21.05.1988	Ex. Ka. 8
2.	Written Report	21.05.1988	Ex. Ka. 1
3.	Recovery Memo and supurdginama of ‘Under-Wear’	21.05.1989	Ex. Ka. 7
4.	Injury Report	22.05.1988	Ex. Ka. 2
5.	Supplementary Report	24.05.1988	Ex. Ka. 3
6.	Site Plan with Index	22.05.1988	Ex. Ka. 6

8. PW-1, father of the victim, in Examination-in-Chief stated that when he returned home at 3:00 p.m. on the day of incident he saw that the physical condition of his daughter was in bad state; private part of the prosecutrix was bleeding, blood was visible on her underwear. He further stated that he was informed by the victim that accused had committed the offence of rape. He further stated that he got the report transcribed by Jeetan Lal on his dictation. He further stated that at 4:00 p.m., he alongwith his daughter and other villagers had gone to the police station. In cross-examination, he reiterated the FIR version and stated that on returning to his house at 3:00 p.m., 3-4 persons of the village had assembled and were talking with his daughter, she informed him of the incident; he denied the suggestion that he had reported the incident after due consultation.

9. PW-2, victim stated that she is aged about 9-10 years, the Trial Court assessed her intelligence by putting several question to ascertain as to whether victim understood the questions. On specific query of the court, she stated that she is not educated, she was aware of her father’s earning by selling bangles, 4 bangles are sold for one rupee; 8 bangles in 2 rupee. On specific query, she recognised the accused respondent present in the court and narrated the incident stating that accused had ca