Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
A - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2024
Decided On : 16-07-2024
For the revisionist : Mr. Pawan Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that witness credibility can outweigh negative forensic evidence in sexual offence cases involving minors.
Headnote:
Criminal - Juvenile Justice - IPC & POCSO Act - Sections 377, 323, 3/4 - The court upheld the conviction of a child in conflict with law for sexual offences, emphasizing the weight of witness testimony over negative forensic results.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a child in conflict with law accused of committing sexual intercourse against the order of nature with an eight-year-old victim. The conviction was based on witness testimonies and medical reports despite a negative forensic report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 377 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, while the evidence for Section 323 IPC was insufficient.
Issues: Whether the negative forensic report undermined the prosecution's case and whether the conviction under Section 323 IPC was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a negative forensic report does not automatically negate the prosecution's case, and the credibility of witness testimonies is paramount in establishing guilt.
Result: The conviction under Sections 377 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act is upheld; the conviction under Section 323 IPC is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
Instant revision has been preferred against the followings:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 11.09.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun (“JJB”) in Inquiry No. 99 of 2020, State Vs. A (a Child in Conflict with Law; hereinafter referred to, as “the 0\”) (“the case”). By it, the CIL has been convicted under Section 377, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the POCSO Act”) and the following order has been passed.
(i) Under Section 377 IPC:- The CIL has been sent to special home for three years and a years and a years and a
(ii) Under Section 323 IPC:- the CIL has been sent to special home for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- has been imposed on his guardian; and
(iii) Under Section 3 read with 4 of the POCSO Act:- the CIL has been sent to special home for three years and a fine of Rs.10000/- has been imposed on his guardian.
The period of staying in special home has been ordered to run concurrently. The JJB has further directed for providing reformative services to the CIL with other directions; and
(ii) Judgment and order dated 15.01.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2023, A Vs. State of Uttarakhand, passed by the court of Special Judge, POCSO/Additional District Judge, Dehradun (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by the father of the victim. According to it, on 10.08.2020, the victim, a young boy of eight years had gone for grazing the goats. At about 3:00 p.m. there the CIL did sexual intercourse with the victim against the order of nature. When the victim returned, he while crying revealed the incident to his family. Based on the FIR, Case Crime No. 317 of 2020, was lodged at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. The victim was medically examined on 11.08.2020 at 1:30 p.m. at Sub District Hospital, Vikas Nagar. On internal examination, the Doctor observed that “there is injury, blood stain, mucous and semen”. The slides prepared during medical examination were sent for DNA examination. But, in the forensic examination, semen or blood could not be detected on the slides/swab of the victim, nails of the victim and hair of the victim. After investigation, challani report was submitted before the JJB against the CIL for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
4. The CIL was read over the accusations. He denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He offered for inquiry. In the inquiry, on behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses have been examined, namely, PW1 the father of the victim, PW2 the mother of the victim, PW3 the victim himself, PW4, the brother of the victim, PW5 Dr. K.C. Sharma, PW6 cousin of the victim and PW7 Sub Inspector, Himani Chaudhary, the Investigating Officer.
5. The CIL was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to him, the witnesses have falsely stated against him. In his defence, the CIL examined DW1 Mohd. Haroon and DW2 Noordeen.
6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the JJB, convicted and passed the aforementioned order in the case, which, as stated, has been confirmed in appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the CIL has raised following points in his submissions:-
(i) The Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) report is negative, but the impugned judgment passed by the JJB does not record the reasons as to why FSL report has not been accepted and why it has been observed that it does not doubt the prosecution case.
(ii) The medical report records that it was a case of attempted anal sex.
(iii) The punishment is severe.
8. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the witnesses of fact have proved the case. The victim himself has stated that as to what happened to him. His statement is reliable. It is argued that PW5 Dr. K.C
