Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Suneet Kumar, Umesh Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Lal Jeet and Tej Bahadur – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6192 & 5681 of 2011
Decided On : 27-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2) (g), 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 226, 231, 164 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 118, 134, 145, 157, 45 – Offence Punishable – First Information Report – Legislative intent – Plurality of witnesses – Public prosecutor – Punishment for Rape – Opening case for prosecution – Number of witnesses – Recording of confessions and statements – Cross-examination as to previous statements – Former statements of witness may be proved – Opinion to be received with great caution – Whether victim had been raped – Held, Court observed “rape is a monstrous burial of girl’s dignity in darkness – Her dignity and purity of physical frame is shattered and she may not be able to assert honour of a woman for no fault of her” – It is not a case of rape by juvenile, a single accused with a mature lady or with a girl who is on verge of attaining age of puberty or majority – Victim was not knowing even nature of offence – Therefore, considering nature of injuries, age of victim, age of accused persons and that it is a case of gang rape with a little girl, Court is of view that trial court has rightly imposed sentence of life imprisonment and fine – Court does not find any sufficient and cogent ground to reduce sentence – It is informed by learned AGA that presently victim is a young-unmarried-girl – At present she is about 19 years of age – Accused are residents of neighbouring village – If sentence is reduced and they are released, social and personal safety problems may cause serious prejudice to victim – Court is of view that there are no mitigating circumstances present to reduce sentence already imposed by trial court – Accordingly, order of punishment and sentence by trial court is found to be appropriate and no interference is warranted – Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred by the convicted accused appellants against the order of conviction and sentencing passed by ASJ, Court No.4, Pilibhit on 25.08.2011 in Crime No.1051 of 2010, under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, PS Newriya, District Pilibhit, whereby the accused appellants were convicted under Section 376(2) (g) IPC and were awarded life imprisonment and Rs.10,000/-fine each and in case of non-payment of fine they had to undergo for one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Johri and Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. At the outset as per CJM report dated 11.05.2022 and the office report dated 17.11.2022 the accused-appellant, Lal Jeet has died, therefore, the appeal so far as Lal Jeet is concerned, stands abated.
4. In brief, facts of the case are that informant Tej Ram, father of the victim aged about 7 years lodged FIR in PS Newriya, District Pilibhit, alleging that on 30.09.2010 his daughter, student of class-three in primary school, Tandola, was playing outside the house at around 7 p.m. when Lal Jeet, son of Budh Sen, Tej Bahadur, son of Hori Lal, and Chintu, son of Kali Charan, residents of neighbouring Village Himmat Nagar @ Chiraindapur, on the pretext of bringing gutkha carried her to a drain situated in the east of the village and forcibly raped her. The victim did not return for a long time, her parents along with other villagers went to search with torches, and heard the victim's scream coming from the side of the drain, then the informant, his wife Tarawati, his elder brother Ram Pal, younger brother Prem Pal and many other villagers reached there, and saw that Lal Jeet and Chintu were catching hold his daughter and Tej Bahadur was doing bad things with her. Seeing them all the three accused persons ran away leaving the victim covered in blood. In the morning all three were again seen in the village. The villagers were very angry and agitated, they caught them. The victim was taken to Kusum Hospital, Pilibhit, for treatment at night. They could not go to the police station due to lack of facilities and thereafter brought the girl and the accused to the police station. Informant requested to register the report and take necessary action.
5. On the basis of the written complaint the case was registered against all the three accused persons being Crime No.1051 of 2010, under Section 376 IPC. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) started investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses. The victim was medically examined, X-Ray was done and supplementary medical report was prepared. Visiting the spot along with the complainant a map was drawn and the shirts and underwears of the accused were taken into possession and sent to FSL by the I.O. On finding sufficient evidence against all the three appellants a charge sheet under Section 376 IPC was submitted to the court. The case was committed to the court of sessions wherefrom the file was transferred to the concerned court.
6. On 31.01.2011 accused persons were charged under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. They denied the charge and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution examined following witnesses to prove the charges:-
8. The prosecution produced the following documentary evidence to prove the prosecution case:-
In rape cases involving minors, credible oral testimony can establish guilt even without corroborative medical evidence, with minimum sentencing requirements upheld.
The court upheld the conviction against the appellant based solely on the victim's credible testimony, emphasizing that societal pressures do not negate the legal obligation to report sexual offenses....
The court reaffirmed that the sole testimony of a survivor can be sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, provided it is credible, and emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory def....
The testimony of a victim in a rape case can be sufficient for conviction, and delays in reporting do not automatically undermine credibility, particularly in cases involving minors.
Testimony of a child victim, if found consistent and credible, outweighs contradictory medical evidence even in the absence of physical injury. A reasonable explanation for the delay in filing a comp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
