Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH, J.
SANJU
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P.
Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.373 of 2008
Decided on 17-4-2009
Rape - Prosecution Evidence - Indian Penal Code Sections 363, 376, 342 - 376 IPC, 363 IPC, 342 IPC - The court discussed the testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical evidence, and the principles of law related to the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual assault. It highlighted the importance of the victim's testimony, the lack of requirement for corroboration, and the reliability of the victim's evidence. The court also referred to previous judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a minor, was allegedly raped by the appellant. The prosecution presented evidence including the prosecutrix's testimony, medical examination, and forensic evidence. The appellant denied the allegations and raised defenses of love affairs and land disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecutrix's testimony reliable and sufficient to establish the case against the appellant. It rejected the appellant's defenses and emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony in sexual assault cases.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the significance of corroborative evidence, and the validity of the appellant's defenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony in sexual assault cases, highlighted the lack of requirement for corroboration, and relied on previous judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the alleged offenses.
Surinder Singh,:- The challenge has been made to the judgment of conviction, passed by the Sessions Judge, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the appellant has been sentenced allegedly committing rape on a minor (12 ½ years), to undergo rigorous imprisonment as under:
Sr. No.
Offence
Sentence
1.
U/S.376 IPC.
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
2.
U/S. 363 IPC.
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two years and a fine of Rs.2000/-.In default of payment of fine he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
3.
U/S.342 IPC.
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months. All the sentences will run concurrently.
(A) PROSECUTION STORY:
2. Precisely, the case of the prosecution as emerges from the prosecution evidence can be stated thus. For the last about two or three months prior to the incident the prosecutrix a minor child of 12 ½ years had been residing with her grand mother (Nani) in village Bandrol.
3. On 16.1.2005 her grand mother had gone to visit her relations in village Seubag. The prosecutrix along with her elder sister Veena and her younger brother Chand Kishore remained alone in the house. During noon at about 12 O’clock, said Km. Veena and Chand Kishore were watching T.V. The prosecutrix was sitting out side her house. The appellant who was residing in the vicinity signaled her to come to his house. She went there. He provided her with a cup of tea. When she wanted to return to her house the appellant bolted the door of the room from inside and did not allow her to go. The appellant made her lie on the bed. When she tried to raise hue and cry, he gagged her mouth and threatened her to kill and committed rape on her. She was compelled to stay for the night in his house and after the meals she was again raped. Next morning when someone knocked at the door she was asked to leave the room through the window. In her house when asked about her absence in the night, she revealed about the entire episode to her sister Veena. Veena disclosed to her aunt Pinki. On coming to know about the aforesaid incident Smt. Pinki, informed telephonically her parents about the said incident and it was thereafter the prosecutrix accompanied by her parents approached the police and lodged the report (Ext.PW-3/A).
4. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The police accompanied by the prosecutrix visited the room where she was alleged to have been raped. She identified her clothes i.e. salwar and shirt in the court which were taken into possession at the time of the medical examination and thereafter it was sent to the forensic examination. The salwar of the prosecutrix was found to have stained with the human semen as per the report Ext.PW-2/C. Her medico legal certificate (Ext.PW-2/A) revealed the rupture of her hymen at 5 O’clock which had healed tears. In the opinion of the doctor the prosecutrix was exposed to coitus.
5. The appellant was arrested and produced for his medical examination before PW4 Dr. Deepak Kapoor on 18.1.2005 and the doctor issued his medico legal certificate (Ext.PW-1/B) and found fit to perform the sexual intercourse.
6. During the investigation of this case, the birth certificate (Ext.PW6/B) of the prosecutrix was taken into possession from Nagar Parishad, Kullu, which disclosed her date of birth 16.5.1992 i.e. about 12 years and 4 months on the day of incident.
7. On the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the accused-appellant. Finding a prima facie case, against the appellant for the aforesaid offences, appellant was charge-sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(B) DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT:
8. The case of the appellant is total denial. According to him he did not know as to why this case was made against him by the
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
