In an appeal against conviction for rape and mutilation, the High Court acquitted the father after finding the prosecution evidence fallen due to unexplained delays by the eyewitness and lack of medical corroboration.
Acquittal of the accused, set-aside of conviction and sentence, and immediate release from jail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Appeal No. 4058 of 2013. Reserved on: July 31, 2014. Decided on: August 04, 2014.
Deep Ram ……Appellant. Versus State of H.P. …….Respondent.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner: Ms. Mahika Verma, Advocate, legal aid counsel. For the respondent: Mr. M.A.Khan, Addl. AG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 19.3.2013 of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, rendered in Sessions Trial No. 8-S/7 of 2011, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 506 of the IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
was all alone in her house along with the accused. The accused tried to commit rape upon her. She raised alarm and the accused did not succeed. However, the accused succeeded in committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix as and when the brother of the prosecutrix and her mother were not in the house and the accused threatened the prosecutrix not to divulge the incident to anyone otherwise she would be killed.
intercourse and there was nothing to rule out the possibility of recent intercourse, qua which MLC Ext. PW-4/A, was issued by the Medical Officer. The pubic hair of the prosecutrix alongwith the vaginal swab was also preserved by the Medical Officer. The same was handed over to the police for forensic examination after sealing with seal of Regional Hospital, Solan. The shirt and underwear of the prosecutrix were also preserved by the Medical Officer and were handed over to the police for forensic examination after sealing with the same seal impression. The prosecutrix produced a towel Ext. P-1 from her house, the same towel which was put underneath her, by the accused while committing rape with her. The towel was identified by PW-3 Babli Devi, which was put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression K, seized vide memo Ext. PW-1/B.
reached there at 11:30 PM. However, there was no lady constable. The lady constable was called from Police Station Dharampur, who reached at Police Post Dagshai at about 12:30 AM. Thereafter report Ext. PW-1/A was lodged. She was medically examined and also subjected to x-ray. In her cross examination, she deposed that they had gone to the police post immediately after she disclosed the incident to her mother. Babli Devi came to her house at 12:30 PM who did not knock at the door of the room as it was open. She admitted that inside another room there is a door of another room which door always remains closed. She also admitted that the room of her brother is dark. Sh. K.D.Sehgal was known to her and she has no knowledge about the age of Sh. K.D.Sehgal. Her mother used to look after Sh. K.D.Sehgal who is inhabitant of Yamuna Nagar. She denied the suggestion that Sh. K.D.Sehgal used to visit her house. She admitted that her mother some times used to accompany Sh. K.D. Sehgal to Yamuna Nagar and her father used to tell her mother not to visit the house of Sh. K.D.Sehgal. She also admitted that due to Sh. K.D.Sehgal, the relations of her mother and father were not cordial. She denied the suggestion that Sh. K.D.Sehgal, was having illicit relations with her mother. She admitted that she had visited the house of Sh. K.D.Sehgal alongwith her mother several times. She had gone to attend the marriage in the month of April, 2010 alongwith her mother and brothers but had returned to the house prior to them. The marriage was at a distance of 10 kilometres from her house. She admitted that her father had also gone to attend the said marriage. Volunteered that he also returned to house, prior to her mother and brothers.
again stated that she told her the incident in the evening. She used to return to her house at about 3-4 PM from the house of Sh. K.D.Sehgal. She admitted that Babli did not disclose the incident to her immediately on her arrival in her house. She did not remember the time when she inquired from the prosecutrix about the incident but she inquired on 7.4.2011.
incorporated in the malkhana register. He sent the same to FSL Shimla on 13.4.2011 vide RC No. 46/11, Ext. PW-7/C through Constable Sudhir.
alleged history of performing sexual intercourse with his daughter on 6.4.2011. He issued MLC Ext. PW-14/A.
accused directly instead of going to her fields. PW 3 has not even narrated the incident to her husband as per her crossexamination. If PW 3 had seen the occurrence, it was serious incident and she was bound to disclose it to the mother of the prosecutrix, instead of delaying the same.
had also returned to the house prior to her mother and brothers. The prosecutrix was bound to come with her mother and brothers rather the entire family was supposed to come back together after attending the marriage.
till 7.4.2011 i.e. till the evening of 7.4.2011. It is apparent that the accused used to impress upon her wife not to go to the house of K.D.Sehgal, however, she did not stop to go to the house of K.D.Sehgal. She used to remain absent from the house for 2-3 days and even accompanied K.D.Sehgal to Yamuna Nagar. PW-1 has admitted that the relations between her father and mother were strained and her father used to tell the mother not to visit the house of K.D.Sehgal. It is not that the mother of the prosecutrix used to visit house of K.D.Sehgal but prosecutrix has also admitted that she used to visit the house of K.D.Sehgal. The registration of FIR at the instance of PW-1 was due to ill-will of the mother of the prosecutrix towards her husband who was asking her not to work in the house of K.D.Sehgal. The prosecution version does not inspire any confidence, in view of the appraisal of the evidence discussed hereinabove.
( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. August 04, 2014, ( Sureshwar Thakur ), (karan) Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has proved the charge of rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deep Ram
State of H.P.
Rajiv Sharma
Sureshwar Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
