Dismissed

Charan Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022CRLA/3071/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against a conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC. The appellate court, affirming the trial court, found the First Information Report prompt, the victim's evidence consistent with medical opinion, and defence witnesses lacking credibility due to unsourced presence and questionable qualifications. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment upheld; appellant to be taken into custody.

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3071 of 1985

¶3

Appellant :- Charan Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Agarwal,Sonakshi Arora Amicus Curiae Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

1 . The present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant Charan Singh against the judgement and order dated 07.11.1985 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Session Trial No. 514 of 1984 (State of U.P. Vs. Charan Singh), by which he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to one year additional imprisonment.

¶6

2 . The prosecution case as per an application dated 11.09.1984 given by Om Dutt is that he had taken orchard of Dharam Singh on rent. He had left his daughter aged about seven years in the orchard for its security. Brahm Sen who is of his village and Om Prakash were cutting grass in the jungle. At about 12:30 pm, there was crying from the side of the orchard, on which, they ran and reached the orchard and saw Charan Singh running away from the orchard. They reached his daughter and saw that she was bleeding from her private parts. She told them that Charan Singh has done bad thing with her. They then brought the girl to the village to her house and told her father about the incident. He has come along with his daughter for lodging a Report and action be taken. The said application is Exb: Ka-1 to the records.

¶7

3 . On the basis of the said application, a First Information Report was lodged on 11.09.1984 at 02:10 pm as Case Crime No. 232 of 1984 under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut against Charan

¶8

¶9

Singh. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station is seven kilometres. The Chik First Information Report is Exb: Ka-1 to the records.

¶10

4 . The name of the prosecutrix is not being disclosed and mentioned in the present judgment in the light of directions of the Apex Court in various judgments and as per Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. She is thus referred to as ‘X’ in the judgment.

¶11

5 . The police took into possession the blood stained underwear of the victim 'X' on 11.09.1984 of which Brahm Sen and Om Prakash were the witnesses. The recovery memo is Exb: Ka-2 to the records.

¶12

6 . The victim 'X' was medically examined by Dr. S. Kapoor on 11.09.1984 at about 03:55 pm. The conclusion as drawn by the doctor is as follows:-

¶13

“In my opinion rape has been committed with her.”

¶14

While being brought by the police constable, the doctor noted as follows in the medical examination report:-

¶15

“Hymen was torn. There is oozing of serum mixed with blood from vagina. Vagina admits one finger easily.”

¶16

She was advised for x-ray for determination of age. Vaginal smear which was sent for examination for presence of spermatozoa. The medical examination report is Exb: Ka-3 to the records.

¶17

A supplementary report dated 12.10.1984 was also prepared by Dr. S. Kapoor in which as per vaginal smear report it was stated that no sperms were seen. The conclusion as drawn with regards to the age of the victim 'X' is that her age is about 8-9 years. The supplementary report is Exb: Ka4 to the records.

¶18

¶19

The x-ray report of the victim 'X' dated 12.09.1984 is also on record which is Exb: Ka-5 to the records. The formal proof of the same has been dispensed with.

¶20

7 . The investigation concluded and a charge sheet no. 138 dated 15.09.1984 under Section 376 IPC was filed against the accused-appellant Charan Singh. The same is Exb: Ka-9 to the records.

¶21

8 . Vide order dated 18.02.1985 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused-appellant.

¶22

9 . In the trial, Om Dutt the first informant was examined as PW-1, victim 'X' was examined as PW-2, Om Prakash an eye witness was examined as PW-3, Brahm Sen an eye witness was examined as PW-4, Dr. S. Kapoor was examined as PW-5, Head Constable Krishna Singh was examined as PW-6 and Sub-Inspector Bhagwan Das was examined as PW7.

¶23

10 . The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations against him. He stated that about 5-6 years ago, Malkhan Singh was murdered Brahm Pal had lodged the report and due to that enmity he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated the witnesses have given false statements. The witnesses were selling chuski (local ice cream) in Sardhana. Brahm Sen on the day of the incident had gone to Dr. Sukhbir’s places which is about 2-3 miles away for work of agriculture.

¶24

11 . In defence, Diwan Singh DW-1 and Suresh Kumar DW-2 have been produced.

¶25

12 . Heard Ms. Sonakshi Arora, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶26

¶27

13 . Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity which has been stated by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the victim 'X' was not found to have received any external injury on her body. It is further argued that there was no fresh injury found on her private parts. It is argued that supplementary report as per pathological examination report did not find any semen to be present in the vagina. It is argued that the defence witnesses were wrongly disbelieved by the trial court. There is no corroboration of the allegation of rape. The present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

¶28

14 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae and argued that the First Information Report is a prompt report. The appellant is named as an accused therein. The statement of the victim 'X' is consistent in so far as the prosecution version is concerned. The opinion of the doctor is specific to the effect that rape has been committed upon the victim 'X'. It is argued that the medical examination report of the victim 'X' shows that there was a sexual assault on her as she has received injury on her private parts. She has been opined to be 8-9 years of age and as such was a minor. The present appeal thus deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

15 . Om Dutt PW-1 is the first informant and the father of the victim 'X'. He has reiterated the version as given by him in his application for lodging of the First Information Report. He proves the same and states of lodging of report by him.

¶30

16 . Victim 'X' PW-2 was a child witness. The trial court took all the precautions to ascertain as to whether she can give answers to the queries and follow the questions and if she is a competent witness. She was provided a chair to stand on it. The trial court recorded its satisfaction of her being in a stage of fitness to be examined after which she was

¶31

¶32

examined and cross examined. She states that the accused-appellant Charan Singh came to her and asked for a guava after which he overpowered her and took out her underwear and committed rape upon her. On her cries, Brahm Sen and Om Prakash who were nearby came there and then the accused ran away. Brahm Sen took her to her house and then she was taken to the hospital for her medical examination.

¶33

17 . Om Prakash PW-3 and Brahm Sen PW-4 are the eye witnesses of the incident. They saw the accused-appellant Charan Singh running out of orchard. They reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of the victim 'X'. They stated that blood was oozing out of the private part of the victim 'X'. They took her to her house and told about the incident to her father. Brahm Sen is the chacha (uncle) of the victim 'X'.

¶34

18 . Dr. S. Kapoor PW-5 medically examined of the victim on 11.09.1984. She gave the conclusion that the victim 'X' was raped. She also prepared a supplementary report. The details of both the reports have been mentioned above.

¶35

19 . Head Constable Krishna Singh PW-6 transcribed the Chik FIR at the Police Station and made the corresponding GD entry. He proves the same.

¶36

20 . Sub-Inspector Bhagwan Das PW-7 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He did the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the accused-appellant Charan Singh.

¶37

21 . Diwan Singh DW-1 claims himself to be a medical practitioner since 1956 in Sardhana. He states that victim 'X' was brought to him and blood was oozing out from her private parts. He did not attend her and advised for her father to come. After her father came he advised her to be taken to the lady hospital. He states that he had inquired from the victim 'X' as to what happened on which she had stated that she had inserted her finger inside her private part.

¶38

¶39

22 . Suresh Kumar DW-2 states that there is a party bandi in the village. One Malkhan Singh was murdered around 35-36 years ago and in the said case Charan Singh the father of the accused-appellant was an accused. The enmity and party bandi is still continuing. He states to have reached the place of occurrence on 11.09.1984 after being called by Chandru a lady. He was then told by Chandru that blood was oozing of the private parts of the girl who is the daughter of Om Dutt. He advised her to be taken to the doctor. He states that he was told that the injury has been caused from a finger.

¶40

23 . The trial court convicted the accused-appellant as stated above and disbelieved the two defence witnesses.

¶41

24 . The victim 'X' has been opined to be 8-9 years old as per the radiological age. She is a child. The same is also deciphered from the opinion of the trial court at the time of recording of her testimony. The appellant-accused is named in the First Information Report. There are two eye witnesses of the incident namely Om Prakash PW-3 and Brahm Sen PW-4. Their testimony is intact without any embellishment. The victim 'X' was medically examined by Dr. S. Kapoor PW-5. She found injuries on her private part. She opined that victim 'X' has been raped.

¶42

25 . Diwan Singh DW-1 is not a qualified doctor. He although states to be practising medicine in the village but his statement cannot be given as he is not more than quack. He himself states in his cross-examination that he treats persons out of experience and he has no medical qualification.

¶43

26 . Identically DW-2 Suresh Kumar states to have reached the place of occurrence on the call of a lady named Chandru. The said Chandru has not been examined as a defence witness. Thus his reaching the place of occurrence also become suspect and there are chances of his being a got up witness. The injuries as received by the victim 'X' coupled with the opinion of the doctor that rape was committed on her is conclusive of the fact of a

¶44

¶45

sexual assault on her. The reason for false implication as pleaded by the accused-appellant and stated by DW-2 who claims himself to have reached the place of occurrence also on the call of Chandru is too old being around 35-36 years back to be a reason for someone to take his minor daughter and bring her in front for false implication. The testimony of DW-2 in so far as his reaching the place of occurrence is also not believable as has already been stated above and as such he could not be treated to be a truthful witness.

¶46

27 . Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion as done, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant Charan Singh. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed .

¶47

28 . The judgment and order of conviction is upheld. The appellant is on bail. He shall taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to him.

¶48

29 . Office is directed to transmit the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action.

¶49

30 . Ms. Sonakshi Arora, learned Amicus Curiae who was appointed Amicus Curiae vide order dated 12.07.2022 passed by this Court assisted the Court in deciding the appeal.

¶50

31 . Office is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- for assistance of the Court to learned Amicus Curiae within two months from today. Order Date :- 29.08.2022 M. ARIF

¶51

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶52

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.09.06 10:13:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Charan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ayush Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Kumar Sharma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation,Anti Corruption Branch

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kallua Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others