DNA evidence is corroborative in nature and cannot be relied upon to convict an accused if there are doubts surrounding its recovery and handling.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 326/2022

Jafrudeen @ Jafru Son Of Ayub, Resident Of Bisru, Police Station

Bichhor, District Nuh Mewat, Haryana At Present Resident Of

Sethwali Ki Dhani, Tan Gwalda, Police Station Chaupanki, District

Alwar (Rajasthan) (At Present In Central Jail, Alwar)

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. GA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment

Reserved on ::

06/01/2023

Pronounced on ::

10 /01/2023

(PER HON. PANKAJ BHANDARI,J.)

1.

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the

judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2022 passed by

Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commission for Child Rights

Protection Act, 2005, No.1, Alwar, whereby appellant has been

convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376-3, 342 IPC

and Sentence under Section 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

sentenced as under:-

U/s 363 IPC:- Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of

Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine further, one month

additional rigorous imprisonment; U/s 366 IPC:- Five years

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of

(2 of 5)

[CRLAD-326/2022]

payment of fine, further two months additional rigorous

imprisonment; U/s 342 IPC:- One year rigorous imprisonment and

fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further seven

days additional rigorous imprisonment; U/s 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act,

2012:- Imprisonment for life till the remaining natural life and fine

of Rs.50,000/-. It has been observed that since the accused-

appellant has been sentenced for the offence under Section 5(f)/6

of POCSO Act,2012, hence as per the provision of Section 42 of

POCSO Act, there is no need to award separate sentence for

offence under Section 376(3) IPC. It has been further ordered that

all the above sentences of accused-appellant shall run

concurrently.

2.

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on

08.04.2021, complainant-Aslam lodged a written report against

the appellant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhiwadi, Police

Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar with regard to an incident alleged

to have taken place on 01.04.2021. It was alleged in the report

that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken away by the appellant in a

Masjid and she was subjected to rape and was also beaten and

threatened.

3.

On the basis of above, police registered FIR

No.42/2021 and after due investigation, police submitted challan

against the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under

Sections 323, 341, 342, 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 and

307 of IPC and Section 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The Trial Court

has framed charges against the accused-appellant. Appellant

denied the charges and claim to be tried. During trial, prosecution

examined 11 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11. In documentary

(3 of 5)

[CRLAD-326/2022]

evidence, 25 documents were exhibited. Certain articles were also

produced before the Court.

4.

After recording the explanation of the accused under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, the trial Court

vide impugned judgment dated 17.10.2022 convicted the

accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363,

366, 376(3), 342 of IPC and Section 5(f)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012

and sentenced him as mentioned herein above. Aggrieved by

which, the present appeal has been preferred.

5.

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the

prosecutrix (PW-1), her father-complainant (PW-2-Aslam) and her

mother (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution version. It is

also contended that Dr. Sushila Meena (PW-5) has stated in her

examination-in-chief that the prosecutrix was not having any

internal injuries. The hy