The court upheld the rape conviction but quashed the sentence under juvenile law, stressing rehabilitation over retribution for juvenile offenders.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC / ST Act), Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 2007 (State of U.P. vs. Arun @ Bheem), registered as Case Crime No. 337 of 2006, under S.376, S.506, S.323, I.P.C. and S.3(2)(5) SC / ST Act, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under S.376 I.P.C. for 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case according to first information report and the prosecution story is that on 09.10.2006, the sister of the informant namely Sunita had gone to the field for bringing fodder. On the way, she met the accused Arun @ Bheem, who put a country made pistol on her temple and used caste relating abusive language. The accused appellant took the victim Sunita to the sugarcane field, where he assaulted and raped her. When the victim raised hue and cry, the mother of the informant, who was following her daughter, came there, at which, the accused appellant also abused the mother of the informant and said that he had raped the victim, thus, the written first information report was lodged at the police station.

4. On the basis of this first information report, chick report was written and relevant entries were made in the G.D., which was proved by the I.O. Prabal Pratap Singh as Exhibit Ka - 6. Investigation was entrusted to Prabal Pratap Singh who was examined as PW - 5. He copied the first information report in the C.D., recorded the statement of the scribe and the Constable, further recorded the statement of victim and her mother. He inspected the spot at the pointing out of the victim, prepared the site plan and proved it as Exhibit Ka - 4. After that, the statements of Babli and Omwati were recorded. Later on, the statement of victim under S.164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after the investigation, this witness has submitted the charge sheet against the accused which was proved by him as Exhibit Ka - 5.

5. The prosecution examined PW - 1, the victim Sunita who is also witness of fact. This witness has proved her statement under S.164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka - 1. PW - 2 is Santar Pal who is the informant and brother of the victim. He has proved the written report. PW - 3 is Anaro, the mother of the informant and victim. PW - 4 is Dr. Veena Rani, who examined the victim and proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka - 3. Thus, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under S.313 Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the occurrence and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to the village party - bandi with Gaurav. The accused did not adduce any defence witness.

7. After examining the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused for the charges under S.506, S.323 I.P.C. and S.3(2)(5) SC / ST Act and convicted the accused under S.376 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred.

8. The following points were raised during the course of argument: -
• The ocular and medical evidence do not support each other, as such, the case does not stand proved against the present appellant.
• The witnesses produced by the prosecution are family members and interested witnesses, hence they cannot be relied upon.
• The appellant Arun @ Bheem has been declared juvenile on the date of incident, hence he has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Pro