Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1800 (HP)

Inder Singh v. State of H. P.

2016-08-29

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 13.12.2013 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla-cum-Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Sessions trial No. 22-S/7 of 2013, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) for his committing offences punishable under Sections 376, 506(B), 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 also sentenced him as under:- 1. 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five thousands). In default of payment of fine convicted Inder Singh shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. 506 B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine to the tune of Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousands). In default of payment of fine convicted Inder Singh shall furnisher undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. 342 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousands). In default of payment of fine convicted Inder Singh shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 4. Section 8 of Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012 Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five thousands). In default of payment of fine convicted Inder Singh shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 5. Section 12 of Protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012 Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine to tune of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousands). In default of payment of fine convicted Inder Singh shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2012 at about 7.00 a.m. at place Galchu P.O Jagtan Tehsil and Police Station, Jubbal District Shimla inside kitchen and again at 9.00 a.m. inside room accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the minor prosecutrix/his daughter aged fifteen years. It is further alleged that continuously since one year prior to the incident of 26.11.2012 the accused had committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the minor prosecutrix. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused threatened the minor prosecutrix to do away with her life. The accused also threatened her that in case she narrated the incident to anybody he will kill her. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused threatened the minor prosecutrix to do away with her life. The accused also threatened her that in case she narrated the incident to anybody he will kill her. It is further alleged that accused on the same date time and place wrongfully confined the minor prosecutrix in order to commit forcible sexual assault upon the minor prosecutrix. On completion of all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offences punishable under Sections 376, 506(B), 342 of I.P.C and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However he did not choose to lead evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused for his committing offences punishable under Sections 376, 506(B), 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record rather theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference rather meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. An FIR stood lodged with the police station concerned qua the ill-fated incident wherein a narrative is held of the minor prosecutrix standing subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused/her father. The sole deposition of the prosecutrix qua the ill-fated occurrence when bereft of any vice of any visible inter-se contradiction vis-a-vis her examination-in-chief with her cross-examination would ipso facto constitute sinewed evidence of probative worth for constraining this Court to return findings of conviction against the accused. For disinterring the factum aforesaid an incisive reading of her deposition is imperative. An incisive reading of her testification qua the ill-fated occurrence embodied in her examination-in-chief besides also in her cross-examination upsurges unfoldments of hers consistently therein making both loud and vivid underscorings qua on the relevant date hers standing subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused bereft of any inter-se contradictions whereupon this Court is coaxed to impute sanctity to her version. Also when the testification qua the ill-fated occurrence rendered by PW-11 (Rahul @ Rinku), her brother is also un-stained with any vice of its holding any contradiction with the testimony of the prosecutrix, is a forceful communication of the accused provenly perpetrating sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix, his daughter. 10. Moreover, the factum of consent, if any, of the prosecutrix to the accused subjecting her to sexual intercourse stands benumbed by the factum of PW-4 (Rakesh Kumar) pronouncing in his deposition qua the prosecutrix standing born on 7.1.2002 hence with hers being a minor at the stage contemporaneous to the occurrence rendered her disempowered to mete consent to the accused for his subjecting her to sexual intercourse also renders the effect of consent, if any, purveyed by the prosecutrix to the accused in his subjecting her to sexual intercourse to be in consequential. 11. The deposition of the prosecutrix whereto corroborative succor stands lent by PW-11 attains corroboration from MLC (Ex. PW-3/C) wherein a pronouncement is made qua hymen of the minor prosecutrix standing torn. Obviously the tearing of the hymen of the minor prosecutrix fillips an inference of its tearing standing begotten by the accused subjecting her to forcible sexual intercourse. Even the deposition of PW-3 (Dr. PW-3/C) wherein a pronouncement is made qua hymen of the minor prosecutrix standing torn. Obviously the tearing of the hymen of the minor prosecutrix fillips an inference of its tearing standing begotten by the accused subjecting her to forcible sexual intercourse. Even the deposition of PW-3 (Dr. Seema Atri) holding underscorings qua the DNA profile existing on the salwar of the prosecutrix on its standing subjected to DNA profiling with the blood sample of the accused begetting the sequel of hence compatibility occurring inter-se them, cogently connects the accused in the commission of the offences alleged. 12. The summom bonum of the above discussion is of the inculpation of accused by the minor prosecutrix, his daughter holding a paramount virtue of veracity. The minor prosecutrix would not have embarked upon hers inculpating her father in a heinous offence given the concomitant besetting upon her the hazardous consequence of hers standing deprived of her means of livelihood contrarily with the accused abusing his fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis his minor daughter renders him amenable to face an order of conviction from this Court. 13. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of conviction has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court merit interference. 14. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.