A statement made to a police officer under Section 161 CrPC may be admitted as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act; however, such a declaration requires strict corroboration and proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a conviction, especially in the absence of corroborative medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant - Rajnish against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 702 of 2008 ( State vs. Rajnish ) under sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. whereby the learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant under the aforesaid sections and sentenced him to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees 10,000 for the offence under Section 363 IPC, to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees 10,000 for the offence under section 366 I.P.C and to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of rupees 10,000 for the offence under section 376 I.P.C with default clause.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The prosecution's narrative arc may be summarized as follows:

On 05.11.1997, the daughter of Ajab Singh, a resident of village Lalpur, had gone to answer the call of nature. When she did not return, a search was conducted, and it was discovered that Rajnish, son of Surendra Singh, had enticed the girl away. At that time, the victim's age was approximately 15 years. A search was conducted among relatives, and on 06.11.1997, a report written by scribe Kirpal Singh was lodged. The victim's guardians received information to the effect that Rajnish's maternal grandfather had taken her to Durveshpur, where the police reached along with Richhpal and Ajab Singh. There, the accused's maternal grandmother informed them that Rajnish, Surajmal, Vikram, and Bhartu were taking the victim in a buggy to village Gavandi. On the way, the four accused were found going in the buggy with the victim; seeing the police, everyone fled from the spot, and she was recovered. It was stated by the victim to them that Rajnish had committed rape with her and she had been dishonored. Her clothes, which had bloodstains on them, were taken into possession by the police. The victim was given into the custody of Ajab Singh and she was brought to Richhpal's house. Her medical examination was to be conducted the next day, but the victim committed suicide during the night itself by hanging from a fan. The prosecution alleges that Rajnish kidnapped and raped the victim as an act of revenge. This was apparently because her family had rejected the proposal of marriage of Tejpal's son, who is a relative of the accused.

3. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka.1), chik First Information Report (Ex.Ka.9) was registered at the police station concerned mentioning all details. G.D. entry was also made at the same time (Ex.Ka.10). The investigation of this case was conducted by R.K. Singh, In-charge Inspector, who after completing the investigation and the necessary formalities, submitted the chargesheet and the case being one exclusively triable by Sessions Court, was committed to Sessions Court for trial. The Charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, which he denied and claimed trial.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, in order to support its case, the statements of PW-1 Kirpal Singh, PW-2 Richhpal, PW-3 Smt. Bala (mother of the deceased), PW-4 S.I. R.B. Dixit, PW-5 Head Constable Arvind Kumar, PW-6 S.I. R.K. Singh, and PW-7 N.K. Gupta were recorded. No