Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Altaf alias Mehtab – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 35 of 2021
Decided On : 09-05-2022
RAPE - Prosecution of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 376(2)(f), 506 IPC, 5(n)/6 of the Act - The court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 376(2)(f), 506 IPC, and Section 5(n)/6 of the Act. The judgment and order of the lower court were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a thirteen-year-old girl, alleged that her father raped her. The incident was reported belatedly, and the medical examination did not conclusively support the prosecution's case. There were discrepancies in the victim's statements, and her mother did not support the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It noted discrepancies in the victim's statements, lack of corroboration, and lack of support from the victim's mother. The court concluded that the appellant should be acquitted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's statement, the belated reporting of the incident, discrepancies in the victim's statements, and lack of corroboration and support from family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the victim's statement to inspire confidence and be reliable, without always requiring corroboration. It also considered the significance of discrepancies, belated reporting, and lack of support from family members in evaluating the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the lower court's judgment and order were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be set free, subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.03.2021/19.03.2021 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2016, State vs. Altaf alias Mehtab, by the court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 (2)(f), 506 IPC and Section 5(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”) and has been sentenced as hereunder:
(ii) Section 506 IPC - rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
(iii) Section 5(n)/6 of the Act - rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. The victim, a girl aged thirteen years, was in her house, where, according to the prosecution, on 06.05.2016 at 03:30 p.m., she was raped by her father. One person, namely, Imran was at the gate, when the occurrence took place. According to the FIR, the appellant also threatened the victim to life. Somehow, on 18.06.2016 at 11:30 p.m. the victim along with her mother reached the house of the informant (sister of the victim’s mother). An FIR was lodged on 19.06.2016 by the informant and a case under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Act was lodged. The victim was medically examined on 20.06.2016. In the history portion, the doctor recorded that, according to the victim, her father was intoxicated with some drug. After that he sent both his wives to fetch some medicine and asked one of his friends to stand outside there. Thereafter father of the victim did unwanted things with the victim and discharged outside. After that, the mother of the victim came back. The victim revealed the incident to her. But, the victim was asked to take bath and wash the clothes. The doctor found no injury on the person of the victim. Even her hymen was intact. The victim was examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) on 21.06.2016. The Investigating Officer (“IO”) also collected the record pertaining to the date of birth of the victim; prepared site plan and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and the co-accused. On 27.01.2017, charges under Sections 376 (2)(f), 506 IPC and 5(n)/6 of the Act were framed against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses i.e. PW-1, the informant; PW-2, the victim; PW-3, the doctor, who medically examined the victim; PW-4 Deshraj; PW-5 SI Khasti Bisht, IO; PW-6 constable Chetan Singh, scriber of the chik FIR; PW-7 SI Rekha Danu, the second IO and PW-8 SI Radhika Nabiyal, the third IO.
4. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, he has been falsely implicated because the informant had a dispute with the appellant with regard to the property.
5. By the impugned judgment and order, the co-accused Imran, who was also charged for offences punishable under Section 376-D IPC and 5(g)/6 of the Act, was acquitted and the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The appellant ought to have been acquitted, but the court below committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae would raise the following points in her submission:
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
