Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Ishrat – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1935 of 1992
Decided on : 26-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.R. Verma, Aarushi Khare
Corroboration is not essential for a conviction in a rape case, and minor discrepancies in witness statements are natural.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Assault on Minor Girl - Section 324 IPC, Section 354 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the assault on a minor girl, aged 4-5 years, resulting in severe injuries to her private parts. The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC and Section 354 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had committed the heinous offence against the minor girl, as corroborated by the statements of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence. The court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The key issues were whether the appellant had committed the assault causing grievous hurt to the victim and whether he had assaulted the victim with an intent to outrage her modesty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statements of prosecution witnesses, medical evidence, and legal principles to establish the guilt of the appellant. It emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements are natural and that corroboration is not essential for a conviction in a rape case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the lower court were affirmed. The appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Aarushi Khare, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh Parmar, learned AGA for the State.
2. Present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by accused-appellant Ishrat against the judgment and order dated 20.10.1992 passed by Sri S.C. Nigam, Seventh Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No.175 of 1990 (State Vs. Ishrat), Police Station-Chamanganj, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby accused-appellant was convicted u/s 324 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted u/s 354 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Both sentences were to run separately.
PROSECUTION STORY:
3. Prosecution story, in nutshell, as unfolded from written report dated 29.11.1988 (Ex.Ka-1) is that informant Shaukat Ali (PW-1) filed written report (Ex.Ka-1) transcribed by Mohd. Aslam, mentioning therein that on 29.11.1988 between 01:00 PM to 03:00 PM, his minor daughter aged about 4-5 years had gone to the house of one of the neighbours to play. On the same day at about 03:00 PM, some people of the locality were stated to have brought his minor daughter in a blood soaked condition from the field and informed that some unknown person had assaulted her private parts by a blade. The victim was taken to the hospital for treatment. It has also been stated in the FIR that blood stained blade is still lying in the field.
4. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka-1), Chik FIR (Ex.Ka-5) was registered on 29.11.1988 at 09:15 PM as Case Crime No.274 of 1988, under Section 324 IPC against unknown person. Thereafter investigation was initiated.
5. The investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer Mehfooz Ali, Sub-Inspector who after recording the statement of the witnesses, preparing site plan, taking in possession the blood stained blade and other materials, arrested the appellant and prepared the arrest memo dated 1.12.1988, thereafter submitted the charge-sheet against him on 16.12.1988.
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
6. Charge against the appellant was framed by the Trial Court on 22.6.1990 u/s 324, 376/511 IPC. The appellant had claimed himself to be juvenile at the time of offence but after the radiological examination, he was found to be major. The trial was proceeded as such.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses i.e. PW-1 Shaukat Ali (Informant), PW-2 Victim, PW-3 Dr. Sushma Singh, PW-4 Ram Kishore, PW-5 Dr. H.N. Bahadur, PW-6 Dr. Ashok Upadhyay, PW-7 Mohd. Javed, PW-8 Gulshan, PW-9 Shakeela and PW-10 Mahfooj Ali. The Court was pleased to examine Dr. Ram Babu as CW-1 to prove the ossification test report of the appellant wherein the age of the appellant was found above 18 years.
8. PW-1 informant is the father of the victim and has corroborated the prosecution story. He has stated that the appellant had committed the diabolic offence of severely cutting the private parts of his minor daughter after having attempted to rape her. The witness was cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant wherein he has stated that after lodging of the FIR, he was informed by the victim that it was the appellant who had committed the said crime to her as by the time of lodging of the FIR, she was not in a condition to speak. He has proved his written report as Ex.Ka-1.
9. PW-2 is the victim who has stated that the appellant had taken her behind the bushes in the field by luring her to give her a toffee where she was disrobed and her private part was cut by him with a blade. She has also stated in the examination-in-chief that she had told about the name of the appellant at the hospital. She had identified the appellant in the dock. Nothing material could be extracted from her in cross-examination by the defence counsel.
10. PW-3 is Dr. Sushma Singh who has stated that the victim was in a state of shock at the time of her medical examination and was not even able to speak. Her blood pressure was foun
