Dismissed

Gajendra Singh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2023CRLA/367/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed criminal appeals against conviction and sentence under the POCSO Act, 2012 and IPC. Upholding the Special Court's finding of guilt based on DNA evidence and victim statement, the court rejected claims of false implication and affirmed the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment and order of conviction and sentence affirmed; record of trial court sent back.

Gajendra Singh Choudhary Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:20876-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 367/2014

¶4

Gajendra Singh Choudhary, S/o Shri Krishan Murari, aged 48 years, R/o Pasand Nagar Kotda, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan (At present in Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶5

----Accused/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Accused(s) For State

¶10

: Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Adv. : Mr. Javed Choudhary, Addl. GA

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

Judgment

¶13

Judgment reserved on :: 04/09/2023 Pronounced on :: 12/09/2023

¶14

(Per Hon’ble Pankaj Bhandari, J)

¶15

Accused-appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2013 passed by Special Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Ajmer, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 366 IPC and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 366 IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo two years rigorous

¶16

[2023:RJ-JP:20876-DB]

¶17

[CRLA-367/2014]

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

imprisonment for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶20

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.02.2013, PW-2 (Manju)- mother of the victim lodged a written report at Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer (Ex.P-1). It was stated in the complaint that on 03.02.2013 at around 01:30 pm, the accused appellant kidnapped the victim from Daharsen Park, where the victim had gone along with her three siblings. In the complaint, it was averred that accused-appellant lured the victim and took her on the hillock, where he committed rape with her.

¶21

On the basis of said report, police registered FIR No.51/2013 under Sections 363, 365 & 376 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 363, 365, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The case was committed to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments on charge, framed the charges against the accused appellant for offences under Sections 366, 376(2) IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accused denied the charges and sought trial. As many as 11 witnesses were examined and 40 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The explanation of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the allegations and stated that he has been implicated due to animosity with paternal uncle of the victim- Rakesh (PW-6). Trial Court after hearing the arguments has convicted the accused-appellant for herein above mentioned offences. Aggrieved by which, accused-appellant has filed this appeal.

¶22

[2023:RJ-JP:20876-DB]

¶23

[CRLA-367/2014]

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellant that the accused was having animosity with uncle of the victim and accused was badly beaten by the uncle and other relatives of the victim and his clothes were filled with blood stains. There is possibility that blood of present appellant was put on the clothes of the victim to forcefully implicate him in this case. It is also contended that the victim in her cross-examination has stated that her family members told her to take the name of accusedappellant.

¶26

Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the appeal. It is contended that victim is a six year old child who was examined as PW-1 and who has stated that accused posing himself as a ghost, took her behind the hills and after tearing her clothes and disrobing himself, committed the offence with her, on which she started bleeding. She has also stated that on her way back, she found her aunt- Khatoon, who caught hold of hand of the accused. PW-1 has clearly stated that the appellant took her and committed offence with her. It is also contended that the DNA report also connects the accused with the crime. PW-7 (Khatoon) has identified the accused in the Court and has stated that she saw the accused coming down the hill on 03.02.2013 at 06:0006:30 pm and she handed over the accused and the victim to the uncle of the victim. It is also contended that the fact that victim was raped is also evident from the statement of PW-8 (Dr. Priyanka), who has deposed that something was inserted in the vagina of the victim.

¶27

[2023:RJ-JP:20876-DB]

¶28

[CRLA-367/2014]

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

We have considered the contentions and have gone through the record and have also perused the judgment of the learned trial Court.

¶31

Gajendra who was seen with the victim by Khatoon (PW-7), has deposed about the same before the Court. PW-1 (victim) who was aged six years at the time of the alleged incident has stated that she had gone to the park with her brother and sister, when Gajendra took her away towards the hill, where he after disrobing himself committed rape with her. PW-6 (Rakesh) has deposed that on 03.02.2013, her sister-in-law informed her that the victim is missing from Daharsen Park. He has stated that Khatoon was holding the hands of Gajendra Choudhary who was trying to escape from her clutches. This witness has stopped his bus upon seeing Khatoon with the victim. This witness has also stated that the victim narrated the incident to him. This witness has denied the suggestion given to him that he had beaten Gajendra and had broken his arms and to save himself, he has falsely implicated the accused. He has also denied that blood of the accused was put on the clothes of the victim.

¶32

From perusal of the FSL report (Ex.P-35), it is evident that human semen was detected from underwear of the victim and pants of the accused. As per the DNA report (Ex.P-36), the conclusion of the DNA report is that “the female DNA profile obtained from underwear of victim and vaginal swab of victim was matching with the DNA profile obtained from pant of suspect Gajendra Singh”, meaning thereby the female DNA profile was obtained from pant of Gajendra Singh which was matching with that of DNA profile of the victim. Victim has clearly narrated the

¶33

[2023:RJ-JP:20876-DB]

¶34

[CRLA-367/2014]

¶35

(5 of 5)

¶36

incident which finds support from the statement of PW-6 (Rakesh) & 7 (Khatoon) who had apprehended the accused on the same day. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the victim, more particularly when on examination of the victim, it was found that recent penetration took place with her. There was bleeding and human semen was detected in the underwear of the victim and pant of the accused. The DNA profile was also matching.

¶37

The contention of counsel for the accused-appellant that the victim was trained by her uncle is without any force. The other contention that the victim stated in her cross-examination that her family members had told her to take name of Gajendra Singh, is also without any force, as the victim is a very young child aged six years and she has stated that the offence has been committed with her by the present appellant, and she is not giving false evidence as her family members have told her to do so. PW2 (Manju) has also deposed that when she asked the victim, she narrated the incident to her. The learned Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and convicting the accused.

¶38

Thus, we do not find any force in the present appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2013 passed by Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Ajmer is affirmed.

¶39

Record of the Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶40

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶41

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶42

CHANDAN /

Gajendra Singh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Singh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Vaishnav S/O Shri Badri Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Son of Shri Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Shrawan Kumar Son of Late Shri Ram Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Maya Devi Alias Anchi Devi W/O Hariprasad D/O Muralidhar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rustam Ali S/O Sultan Mohammed Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajaram Son of Ratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan