Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 356 (UTT)

SURENDRA SINGH BISHT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-05-28

ALOK SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2012 convicting the appellant under Section 376 and 363 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of six month under section 376 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of one month under section 363 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that mother of the prosecutrix PW2 lodged an FIR to the effect that on 19.05.2012 at about 12.30 p.m., her daughter, aged about 13 years, was coming from school; when she reached about 150-200 meter away from the school, one person caught her and took her into bushes; he strangled her and bit on her chin; she felt unconscious; after gaining consciousness, she came towards her village wherefrom Mohan identifying her school uniform took her to the school. On the basis of complaint, FIR was registered. Investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. After committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun framed charges to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 Prosecutrix, PW2 mother of prosecutrix, PW3 Virendra, PW4 Rajni Lama, PW5 Santosh Sharma, PW6 Head Constable Lalit Joshi, PW7 Sub Inspector Deepika Rana, PW8 Dr. Mamta Pangtey, PW9 Sub Inspector Pradeep Negi. 4. Learned trial Judge having considered the entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. Heard Mr. R. P. Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the appellant, Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for State of Uttarakhand and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the complainant and perused the record. 6. PW1 Prosecutrix supported the prosecution story and she in her examination-in-chief stated that on 19.05.2012, accused appellant coming from front side and caught her from her neck and he pulled her in bushes. He beat and undressed her. Pushpa Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for State of Uttarakhand and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the complainant and perused the record. 6. PW1 Prosecutrix supported the prosecution story and she in her examination-in-chief stated that on 19.05.2012, accused appellant coming from front side and caught her from her neck and he pulled her in bushes. He beat and undressed her. He penetrated his penis in her vagina. Blood was oozing out from her vagina. Accused bit her on neck and shoulder, thereafter, she felt unconscious. When she gained consciousness, she wore her clothes. She met with one uncle, who took her to school. School officials called her mother, then she narrated her ordeal to mother. Her mother went to the police station and lodged the FIR. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital for medical examination. Prosecutrix saw the accused appellant on 23.05.2012 at Chandrabani Chowk. She immediately informed the police. Police rushed to the spot and arrested the accused appellant. 7. PW8 Dr. Mamta Pangtey, who had medically examined the prosecutrix, opined that injuries on the vagina of the prosecutrix could be occurred due to sexual assault (rape). She stated that possible time of the injuries, sustained by the prosecutrix, could be on 19.05.2012 between 12.00 noon to 1.00 p.m. and possibility of forced sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. 8. Clothes of the prosecutrix were sent forensic examination and the FSL report reveals that semen was found on skirt and underwear of the prosecutrix and human blood was found on skirt, underwear and socks of the prosecutrix. 9. In my opinion, statements of prosecutrix PW1 and PW8 Dr. Mamta Pangtey and FSL report are sufficient to hold the accused appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376, 363 IPC. I do not have slightest doubt in mind that accused appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix. 10. In view of the above discussion, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is modified only to the extent that both the sentence shall run concurrently. 11. Let copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the court below.