Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Deepak – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JAIL APPEAL No. - 839 of 2017
Decided on : 05-07-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - RAPE AND KIDNAPPING - IPC SECTIONS 363, 366, 376 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to kidnapping and rape. It emphasized that the prosecution must establish the age of the prosecutrix to prove kidnapping under Section 363. The court interpreted the definitions of rape under Section 375 and the punishment under Section 376, concluding that the evidence of the prosecutrix, despite medical evidence suggesting otherwise, was credible and sufficient for conviction. The court also highlighted the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony in sexual assault cases, stating that corroboration is not always necessary if her evidence is reliable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Deepak, was convicted for kidnapping and raping a girl, with the prosecution alleging that he enticed her away and committed sexual offenses against her. The informant, Shamli Devi, reported the incident after her daughter was returned by one of the accused. The trial court found the prosecutrix to be a major at the time of the incident, which influenced the charges under Section 363 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the trial court's findings, stating that the prosecutrix was a reliable witness and her testimony was consistent. The court noted that the medical evidence did not negate the prosecutrix's claims of rape, and the absence of injuries did not undermine her credibility. The court concluded that the appellant had committed rape against the will of the prosecutrix.
Issues: Whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant, and whether the medical evidence contradicted the prosecutrix's testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the testimony of the prosecutrix in rape cases is vital and can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence. It emphasized that corroboration is not a prerequisite for conviction in sexual assault cases, and the absence of physical injuries does not negate the occurrence of rape.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's judgment and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 366 IPC and seven years under Section 376 IPC, stating that the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This jail appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Deepak s/o Sompal Singh, who has been convicted under Sections 366, 376 IPC vide judgment and order dated 7.5.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No.509 of 2013 (State Vs. Indrapal s/o Sanjay & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.37 of 2013 under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2g) IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5000/-under section 366 IPC and in default of payment of fine, three months additional rigorous imprisonment has been awarded and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/-under section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months additional rigorous imprisonment has been awarded against the appellant. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the informant Shamli Devi moved a written report before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad narrating therein that her daughter was enticed away by Indrapal, Deepak, Rakesh and Deepak-II on 14.1.2013 at about 7:00 P.M. The police did not lodge the F.I.R., but subsequently on 15.1.2013 at 7:00 P.M., one Deepak left the girl from an auto. By order of Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 363, 366 IPC and investigation took place.
3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and witnesses, prepared the site plan and the prosecutrix was medically examined and subsequently charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2g) IPC was submitted before the Court against all the four named accused persons. During trial, the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded under orders of the Court.
4. The case, being exclusively triable by the Session Court, was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad to the Session Court on 24.5.2013.
5. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Moradabad proceeded to frame charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2g) IPC against the accused Indra Pal, Deepak s/o Dileep, Rakesh and Deepak s/o Sompal Singh. The accused persons denied of all the charges and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, relied upon the oral testimonies of P.W.1 Shamli Devi, the informant, P.W.2 Head Moharrir 18 Chanchal Sirohi, the scribe, P.W.3, the prosecutrix, P.W.4 Dr. Monica Agarwal, P.W.5 Rajendra and P.W.6 Ravi, the witnesses of fact and P.W.7 S.I. Satish Kumar, the Investigating Officer of the case.
7. To corroborate the oral deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, prosecution has also relied upon documentary evidence and written report (Ex.Ka.-1), chik F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-2), case registration G.D. (Ex.Ka.-3), medical reports (Exs.Ka.-4,5, 6 &7), sketch maps (Ex.Ka.-8 & 9) and charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-10) has been proved in evidence.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence the incriminating evidence and circumstances were put forward to the accused persons and they have stated in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the entire prosecution story and the statement of P.W.1 are false and fabricated and they are innocent. Accused Deepak s/o Sompal has also stated that on account of animosity, he has been falsely implicated in this matter. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused persons.
9. Since in this matter a charge under Section 363 IPC has also been framed, it was obligatory upon the prosecution first of all to prove that the prosecutrix, on the date of the incident, was a minor girl.
10. P.W.1, the informant, in her testimony before the Court has stated that her daughter was aged about 16 -17 years at the time of the occurrence. Although in the written report (Ex.Ka.-1), it is nowhere mentioned as to whether the
The testimony of a victim in rape cases is crucial and can lead to conviction without corroboration if it is credible and consistent, and medical evidence does not necessarily negate the victim's acc....
The conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is full of contradictions and lacks corroborative 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 credibility of prosecutrix's testimony is sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration when circumstances support her claims.
Rape – Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – There is no rule of law or practice that evidence of prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corrobor....
The evidence of a prosecutrix must be credible and consistent for a conviction in rape cases; contradictions and lack of supporting evidence can lead to acquittal.
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
