Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RENU AGARWAL, J.
Rajendra Prasad @ Gappu – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1013 of 2000
Decided on : 15-03-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374 (2) - Offence of Rape - Charged - Appeal against conviction - Accused entered house of complainant and enticed away her minor daughter, whose date of birth - Incident was witnessed - When accused and victim were inside house, these witnesses went inside house of the complainant - At time of incident, the complainant had gone to Narainpur to attend a marriage - Complainant searched his daughter but she could not be found - complainant came to know that had kidnapped his daughter - investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector , who recorded statement of complainant and victim, visited place of occurrence and prepared site plan thereof - During investigation, victim was recovered from Kaiserbagh Bus Stand - After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted before court of competent jurisdiction - It is clear that no proof of age is collected by Investigating Officer - Complainant specifically noted date of birth of victim as per school document - It was duty of Investigating Officer to verify age of victim from the school document - If date of birth is not verified from school certificate by the Investigating Officer, it is fault on behalf of Investigating Officer for which age of the victim could not be disputed. [Para 30]
Finding of Court : . It is a case of appellant that he had dispute over water chestnuts, which were sown and reaped by accused appellant unlawfully but there is no F.I.R. regarding the incident - It appears that this was not major incident - In entire evidence prosecution proved fact that victim was enticed away and she was recovered from the possession of accused - Recovery memo is signed by accused as well as witnesses, delay is explained, age of victim is specifically mentioned in F.I.R. by way of date of birth as well as in statement of complainant - Victim is proved minor and her consent has no effect - Consent of victim could not be presumed in favour of accused - Consent is to be proved by accused appellant by clear evidence - All factum have been discussed and dealt by trial court in its judgment - There is no ambiguity and illegality in judgment of trial court and judgment of trial court is liable to be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed - So far as the punishment is concerned, learned trial court has considered young age of appellant at time of passing order and passed seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C., which is bare minimum punishment prescribed in case - Learned counsel for appellant could not show any circumstances to mitigate sentence awarded by trial court, punishment awarded by trial court is also confirmed.
Result : Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Gopesh Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.460 of 1996 arising out of Case Crime No.234 of 1992, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow, whereby the accused-appellant, Rajendra Prasad @ Gappu has been sentenced and convicted under Section 363 I.P.C. to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 366 I.P.C. to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-and under Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-. It was further directed in the impugned judgment that in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo six months’ additional imprisonment under Section 363 I.P.C., to undergo six months’ additional imprisonment under Section 363 I.P.C. and three years’ additional imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C.
3. In the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the name of victim is not disclosed. Her name is refereed as letter ‘X’.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.1992 at about 11:00 P.M., accused Rajendra Prasad @ Gappu entered the house of complainant and enticed away her minor daughter, whose date of birth is 20.08.1980. The incident was witnessed by Vinod Kumar, Motilal, Ram Dashrath and Satrughan. When the accused Rajendra Prasad @ Gappu and the victim were inside the house, these witnesses went inside the house of the complainant. At the time of incident, the complainant had gone to Narainpur to attend a marriage. The complainant searched his daughter but she could not be found.
The complainant came to know that Rajendra Prasad @ Gappu had kidnapped his daughter.
5. On the basis of written report, First Information Report under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. was lodged in the Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow. Chik report was also prepared endorsing G.D. No.27 at about 15:40 hours on 11.05.1992.
6. The investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector R.D. Singh, who recorded the statement of complainant and victim, visited place of occurrence and prepared site plan thereof. During the investigation, victim was recovered from Kaiserbagh Bus Stand. The Investigating Officer prepared the recovery memo, Ex. Ka-2 and site plan of the place of recovery, Ex. Ka-6 and handed over the victim to her parents. The victim was medically examined by lady doctor, who prepared medical report, Ex. Ka-4 and she was also medically examined for the purpose of determination of age. The X-ray report, Ex. Ka-3 and X-ray plate, material Ex.-1 is on record. It was opined by doctor that the victim was in between 16 to 17 years of age. After the conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction.
7. The case was committed to the court of sessions where accused appeared and charges were framed against him under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. The accused/appellant denied from the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has presented following witnesses.
(ii) P.W.-2, the Victim.
(iii) P.W.-3, Dr. J.P. Gupta, Radiologist.
(iv) P.W.-4, Dr. Mridula Sharma
(v) P.W.-5, Sub Inspector R.D. Singh.
(vi) P.W.-6, Ram Sumiran.
(vii) P.W.-7, Retired Sub Inspector Dev Nath Dubey.”
9. Besides oral evidence, the following documentary evidences were also prepared and proved in the court.
(ii) Ex. Ka-2, Recovery Memo.
(iii) Ex. Ka-3, X-ray report.
(iv) Ex. Ka-4, Medical report.
(v) Ex. Ka-5, Site Plan.
(vi) Ex. Ka-6, Site Plan of recovery.
(vii) Ex. Ka-7, Charge sheet.
(viii) Ex. Ka-8, Chik report.
(ix) Ex. Ka-9, Carbon copy of G
Point of Law : All the factum have been discussed and dealt by the trial court in its judgment. There is no ambiguity and illegality in the judgment of the trial court.
The consent of a minor girl in case of sexual intercourse is immaterial and amounts to rape.
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....
Rape conviction quashed due to unreliable victim testimony with inconsistencies and improvements, manipulated age records doubting minority, absent medical evidence despite multiple claims, unexplain....
The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence, without the need for corroboration.
The sole testimony of a prosecutrix can suffice for conviction in rape cases if credible, while age determination must be supported by reliable evidence.
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.
The determination of the victim's age is crucial in cases of sexual offences, and the court emphasized the importance of following the procedure for determining the age of a juvenile under the Juveni....
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
