Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 22 (HP)

Sunil Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-01-05

SABINA, SUSHIL KUKREJA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, laying challenge to the judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2021 and order of sentence dated 23.06.2021, passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court (under POCSO Act), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in RBT Sessions Case No.129-P/VII/20/2019, titled State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sunil Kumar @ Sonu, whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused), was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one year, for the commission of offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 02.12.2018 the complainant (name withheld) alongwith her husband made a complaint at Police Station Bhawarna to the effect that her daughter, i.e. child victim, was missing since morning at about 7.30 a.m. when she had gone to a temple. About 8-10 days back, the child victim had sent a message from the mobile phone of mother-in-law of the complainant to some unknown number and thereafter when the complainant made a call to the said unknown number, the person who received the call, did not disclose his name. On 01.12.2018, the child victim again made a call from the mobile phone of her neighbour and when the complainant made a call on the said number, that person again picked up the phone, but did not respond and on 02.12.2018 at about 7.30 a.m., the child victim had gone to the temple, but did not return home and when the complainant had gone to see her, a small water container, was found thrown in the kitchen garden. When the complainant checked the articles in the house, she found that one pant of the child victim and Rs.500/- were missing. The child victim was student of 9th class in Z.A.V. Public School Sullah and the complainant had suspicion that the said unknown person, from whose mobile the massages had come, had allured her daughter and taken away her with him. 3. The child victim was student of 9th class in Z.A.V. Public School Sullah and the complainant had suspicion that the said unknown person, from whose mobile the massages had come, had allured her daughter and taken away her with him. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, a formal FIR No.185, dated 02.12.2018, was registered against the accused at Police Station Bhawarna, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. During investigation, Inspector Surinder Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case, procured birth certificate of the child victim and on 03.12.2018, the father of the child victim informed the police that his daughter had returned back to home herself and they were coming to the police station alongwith the daughter. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant i.e. mother of the child victim and he had also recorded the statement of the child victim through videography. The accused was associated in the investigation and he was arrested. The child victim was got medically examined and on 04.12.2018, the statement of the child victim was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer prepared the spot map and taken into possession one handkerchief from the bushes near Maranda Railway Station, which was used by the child victim for cleaning and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. He had also taken into possession the bed sheet, from the room where the child victim stayed along with the accused. During investigation, the Investigating Officer had also taken into possession motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-37C-0361 alongwith its documents and school leaving certificate of the child victim. The samples were sent to RFSL and the sample of DNA was also sent. 5. On the completion of the investigation and receipt of the RFSL report, the Investigating Officer prepared the chargesheet and presented the same in the Court. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was also prepared and presented by ASI Subhash Chand in the Court. 6. Vide order dated 16.07.2019, charges were framed by the learned trial Court against the accused under Sections 363, 376(3), IPC and Section 6 of the Act, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. 6. Vide order dated 16.07.2019, charges were framed by the learned trial Court against the accused under Sections 363, 376(3), IPC and Section 6 of the Act, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him, besides pleaded to be innocent and being falsely implicated. However, the accused did not examine any witness in his defence. 8. On the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted the accused, vide the impugned judgment and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant/accused approached this Court by way of an appeal, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective as there are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the trial Court has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that the learned trial Court had proceeded to convict the appellant on the basis of suspicion by ignoring the principle that a suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the place of a valid proof. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and contended that since the charge against the accused has been duly proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the record carefully. 13. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1, mother of the child victim, PW-2, the child victim, PW-3, father of the child victim, PW-5 Pinki Devi and PW-18 Dr. Nandita Katoch. 14. 13. The case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1, mother of the child victim, PW-2, the child victim, PW-3, father of the child victim, PW-5 Pinki Devi and PW-18 Dr. Nandita Katoch. 14. The child victim, while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2, deposed that on 02.12.2018, at around 7/7:30 a.m., she had gone to Baba Sidh Rupi temple near her house, where she met accused Sunil, who took her on a bike to Saleen temple and from there, the accused took her on foot to Maranda Railway Station, where near the bushes, he had sex with her and thereafter he gave her his handkerchief for cleaning her private part, which was thrown in the bushes. The accused then took her to his Chachi's (aunt) house at Kakrein and they reached there at around 7:00 p.m. She also deposed that she slept on the bed with sister of the accused and her two children and accused Sunil also slept on that bed. She alongwith accused Sunil slept towards the head side of the bed, whereas, the sister of the accused alongwith her children slept towards the opposite side of the bed, facing their feet. Accused went to his house and told that he would come around 9:00 p.m. and thereafter his aunt had gone to sleep and the accused came in the night and he had sex with her on the bed and in the morning, the accused had left at around 8:00 a.m. and he came with one police official to bring his mobile which he had left there and threatened her that he would not spare her whenever, he would be out of jail. Thereafter, she returned from the house of Chachi of the accused at around 11:00 a.m. and the accused told her to inform her parents that some 4-5 persons had kidnapped her and the accused had saved her. She had told the same thing to her mother initially and thereafter she talked to her father telephonically and narrated the entire incident to him. The police had taken her to the hospital for medical examination and the doctor seized her clothes. Her statement was also recorded at Palampur Court. She had told the same thing to her mother initially and thereafter she talked to her father telephonically and narrated the entire incident to him. The police had taken her to the hospital for medical examination and the doctor seized her clothes. Her statement was also recorded at Palampur Court. On 04.12.2018, she had shown the place of occurrence at Maranda Railway Station to the police and identified the handkerchief, which was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW1/D and on 05.12.2018, she had taken the police to the house of the Chachi of the accused, where the bed was shown by her to the police and identified the bed sheet, on which the accused had sex with her, which was seized by the police, vide memo Ex.PW1/F and the police had also clicked the photographs Ex.PW1/G-1 to PW1/G-7 at Maranda and at the house of the Chachi of the accused. The police had also done the videography of her statement. 15. PW-1, who is the mother of the child victim, deposed that on 02.12.2018, the child victim had gone to Shiv Temple at around 7:30 a.m., but she did not return home till the evening and they searched for her in the nearby places. Her husband had gone to Chandigarh and returned home on the next day, therefore, she went with him to Police Station Bhawarna and had given complaint EX.PW1/A to SHO, Police Sation Bhawarna on 02.12.2018 and on 03.12.2018, when her husband was searching for the child victim, the neighbours had brought the child victim to home as she was stated to have fainted in the path and when they questioned her, she told that some 3-4 persons had kidnapped her and accused Sunil Kumar had saved her and when she (complainant) asked her husband to talk to the child victim telephonically, then the child victim told that the accused had asked to her to disclose that some 3-4 persons had kidnapped her and he had saved her. The child victim had made statement to the police that she had gone on foot at some distance from the temple to the road head, from there, accused Sunil had taken her on his bike to Saleen Mandir and at that place the accused had raped her and thereafter he took her to Maranda Railway Station on foot and again raped her and around 5:00-6:00 p.m., the accused took the child victim to his home, where his sister and Chachi were present. Thereafter, the accused left the home by telling the child victim that he would return by 9:00 p.m. and he returned around 9:30 p.m. to his home and again raped the child victim even when the sister of accused was also in the same room. On the next day, the child victim returned home and the police had also visited the house of accused. She had given the Birth Certificate of the child victim Ex.PW1/B to the police. The police had taken the child victim for medical examination and she accompanied her. The doctor had seized the clothes of child victim. The statement of child victim was also recorded in the Court at Palampur. 16. PW-3 is the father of the child victim and had fully corroborated the statement of PW-1, by deposing that on 02.12.2018 he was at Chandigarh in connection with operation of his mother and he received a telephonic call of his wife at around 8:30 a.m. that the child victim had gone to temple, but she had not yet returned. His wife told him that Rs.500/- were missing from her purse and one ladies suit was also missing from the house and he returned home on 02.12.2018 itself and reached home at around 4:00 p.m. and thereafter they inquired about the child victim at the house of her friend, but she was not found there and thereafter his wife moved application Ex.PW1/A, to the police at 6:00 p.m. on that very day. On 01.12.2018, his daughter had found a mobile in Sullah Bazar, which belonged to one Yashpal and she used that mobile which was also with her when she left the home. The son of Yashpal, who is a Software Engineer, informed his father about IMEI number of Yashpal's mobile and Yashpal informed him about it. On 01.12.2018, his daughter had found a mobile in Sullah Bazar, which belonged to one Yashpal and she used that mobile which was also with her when she left the home. The son of Yashpal, who is a Software Engineer, informed his father about IMEI number of Yashpal's mobile and Yashpal informed him about it. He informed the police about this fact and the police tracked that IMEI number, which was found located at the house of accused Sunil and thereafter the police accompanied them to the house of accused Sunil and arrested him. The accused was questioned by the police, but he did not disclose about the location of the child victim and when the Chachi of accused came to know that Sunil has been arrested, then she sent the child victim to her home at around 12:00 noon. The child victim had become unconscious on her way to home near the house and the neighbours brought her in that condition to their house and at that time, he was in the police station and his wife telephonically informed him that the child victim had come home. He asked his wife to bring the child victim to police station, who brought her to Police Station Bhawarna at around 12:30 p.m. and thereafter the child victim had initially told his wife that she had been kidnapped by 4-5 persons, and accused Sunil had saved her and thereafter when he talked to the child victim on telephone, she told that it was accused Sunil Kumar who had kidnapped her and raped her near Maranda Railway Station and at the house of his Chachi. 17. PW-5 Pinki Devi is the aunt (Chachi) of the accused and deposed that on 02.12.2018 accused Sunil Kumar had brought the child victim to her house at around 8:30 p.m. and thereafter the accused had gone to his house in the same village and returned after having dinner in his own house. This witness also deposed that her daughter Babli Devi alongwith her two children had come to her house two days back. She alongwith her husband had slept in the kitchen, whereas, her daughter alongwith her children, the child victim and the accused slept on the double bed in the room. 18. PW-18 Dr. This witness also deposed that her daughter Babli Devi alongwith her two children had come to her house two days back. She alongwith her husband had slept in the kitchen, whereas, her daughter alongwith her children, the child victim and the accused slept on the double bed in the room. 18. PW-18 Dr. Nandita Katoch deposed that on 03.12.2018, the police moved application Ext.PW18/A for conducting medical examination of the child victim, who was brought by LC Renu with the alleged history of sexual assault. According to the child victim, she was not subjected to any coitus prior to this assault and the accused did not use condom during the assault and she was in her full senses at the time when the rape occurred. This witness also deposed that on physical examination of the child victim, she was conscious and well oriented to time, place and person and blood stains were present over her panty and on local examination, the pubic hair were matted, vulva was normal, the hymen was not present, the blood was present in the vagina and the perineum was normal and cervix could not be seen due to blood. After medical examination of the child victim, she issued the MLC EX.PW18/B. She had taken the samples, performed pregnancy test and also taken into possession the clothes of the child victim. 19. PW-19 Dr. Varun Sood deposed that he had conducted the medical examination of accused Sunil Kumar and there was no mark of injury on the person of the accused. He preserved nine samples including clothes of the accused, which were sealed and handed over to the police and he had issued MLC Ext. PW19/B. In his opinion, the accused was capable to perform sexual intercourse. 20. So far as the age of the child victim is concerned, while appearing in the witness box as PW-2, the child victim disclosed that in the year 2018, she was studying in 9th class and her date of birth was 09.11.2005. Similarly, PW-1, mother of the child victim, disclosed that the date of birth of the child victim was 09.11.2005 and PW-3, father of the child victim also disclosed that in the year 2018, the child victim was 13 years of age and she was studying in 9th class. PW-18 Dr. Nandita Katoch had conducted the medical examination of the child victim and issued MLC Ext. PW-18 Dr. Nandita Katoch had conducted the medical examination of the child victim and issued MLC Ext. PW18/B, wherein the age of the child victim was mentioned as 13 years. The prosecution examined PW-10, the then Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, who deposed that on 18.01.2018, the police moved application Ext. PW10/A for issuance of birth certificate of the child victim. As per record, the date of birth of the child victim was 09.11.2005 and in this regard, he had issued Birth Certificate Ext.PW10/B and he had also issued abstract of Parivar Register Ext.PW10/D. PW-15, the then Head Master of the school, deposed that on the application of police Ext.PW15/A, he had issued birth certificate Ext. PW15/B of the child victim, on the basis of school record and as per record, the date of birth of the child victim was 09.11.2005. Thus, the perusal of birth certificates Ext.PW10/B and Ext.PW15/B shows that date of birth of the child victim was 09.11.2005. Since the date of occurrence was 02.12.2018, therefore, at the time of the occurrence, the age of the child victim was about 13 years and she comes under the definition of ‘child’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act. 21. The law on Section 376 of the IPC has been categorized and reiterated by the Courts time and again. Testimony of a victim of such an offence, if found cogent and credible by itself, is sufficient to nail the accused. No other supportive evidence is required. A prosecutrix of a sex related offence cannot be treated at par with an accomplice. She is in fact, a victim of the crime. She is undoubtedly, a competent witness and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence, as in the case of an injured. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice that her statement requires corroboration. 22. The Rule of appreciation of evidence of prosecutrix in cases relating to sexual assault has been considered in several cases by Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice that her statement requires corroboration. 22. The Rule of appreciation of evidence of prosecutrix in cases relating to sexual assault has been considered in several cases by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Dilip and another vs. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 452 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. Para-12 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “12. The law is well-settled that prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In State of H.P. Vs. Gian Chand, on a review of decisions of this Court, it was held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc., if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on…....” 23. In Jugendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 6 SCC 297 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual, but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "49. ……...Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. So, the courts should deal with such cases sternly and severely. No one has any right of encroachment. ………...." 24. In Lillu @ Rajesh & another Vs. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. So, the courts should deal with such cases sternly and severely. No one has any right of encroachment. ………...." 24. In Lillu @ Rajesh & another Vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that rape is violative of victim's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, the courts should deal with such cases sternly and severely. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "12. In State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh: AIR 2004 SC 1290 , this Court dealt with the issue and held that rape is violative of victim's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. So, the courts should deal with such cases sternly and severely. Sexual violence, apart from being a dehumanizing act, is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a woman. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity as well. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries, but leaves behind a scar on the most cherished position of a woman, i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and chastity. Rape is not only an offence against the person of a woman, rather a crime against the entire society. It is a crime against basic human rights and also violates the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 25. In State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny, (2017) 2 SCC 51 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault, if it inspires confidence and seeking corroboration to her statement before relying upon the same would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:- “31..............By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance…...” 26. Therefore, the testimony of the child victim is required to be considered, keeping in mind these principles of appreciation of evidence of the rape victim. We have minutely gone through the statement of the child victim and found the same to be trustworthy and confidence inspiring. Her statement is consistent right from the time when she had made initial statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. before the police and thereafter under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur till the time of her deposition before the trial Court. Her statement is quite natural and is also consistent with the case of prosecution. She was cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel, however, nothing favourable could be elicited from her lengthy cross-examination. She had successfully withstood the test of her cross-examination and there are no material discrepancies and contradictions in her statement, which go to the root of the case or which may affect the core of prosecution case in any manner. She was cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel, however, nothing favourable could be elicited from her lengthy cross-examination. She had successfully withstood the test of her cross-examination and there are no material discrepancies and contradictions in her statement, which go to the root of the case or which may affect the core of prosecution case in any manner. Even after being subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, the child victim’s statement made in the examination-in-chief regarding sexual assault made by the accused remained totally un-impeached. She emphatically denied all the suggestions put forth by the defence counsel to probabilise non-complicity of the accused. The statement of the child victim is corroborated by the statements of her mother (PW-1), her father (PW3) and PW-5 Pinki Devi, who is the aunt of the accused. PW-5 Pinki Devi specifically deposed that the child victim stayed in her house alongwith the accused. 27. The scientific evidence further lends assurance to the statement of the child victim. As per DNA report Ext.PW20/A, DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of accused matched completely with the semen found on the underwear of the child victim and DNA profile obtained from the semen found on the handkerchief Ex.P2 also matched completely with DNA profile of the blood sample of accused Sunil Kumar, which was recovered by the police from the bushes at Maranda Railway Station where the accused had committed rape on the child victim. Though, the accused was examined under Section 313. Cr.P.C., but except for the denial simplicitor, he had not offered any explanation about the presence of his semen on the underwear of the child victim and on the handkerchief. 28. The object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to bring to the notice of the accused the incriminating evidence and to give him an opportunity to explain the same, if he chooses to do so. The essential features of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the principles of law enunciated in various judgments have been succinctly summarized in case of Ashok kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 350 . The paragraphs 29 to 31 thereof read as under:- "29. Now we may proceed to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case. State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 350 . The paragraphs 29 to 31 thereof read as under:- "29. Now we may proceed to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case. In order to bring the issues raised within a narrow compass we may refer to the statement of the accused made under Section 313,Cr.P.C. It is a settled principle of law that dual purpose is sought to be achieved when the Courts comply with the mandatory requirement of recording the statement of an accused under this provision. Firstly, every material piece of evidence which the prosecution proposes to use against the accused should be put to him in clear terms and secondly, the accused should have a fair chance to give his explanation in relation to that evidence as well as his own versions with regard to alleged involvement in the crime. This dual purpose has to be achieved in the interest of the proper administration of criminal justice and in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. can be used by the Court in so far as it corroborates the case of the prosecution. Of course, conviction per se cannot be based upon the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. 30. Let us examine the essential features of this section and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments of this Court, which are the guiding factor for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. 31. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. 31. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence." 29. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that as per Section 29 of the Act, where the person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the Act, the Court shall presume that such person had committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. The presumption of culpable mental state of the accused is also envisaged in Section 30 of the said Act. In the instant case, as observed earlier, the accused had failed to rebut the said statutory presumption contained in the Act either by bringing on record the facts during the course of cross-examination of witnesses or during his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 30. In the instant case, as observed earlier, the accused had failed to rebut the said statutory presumption contained in the Act either by bringing on record the facts during the course of cross-examination of witnesses or during his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 30. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, there is no illegality, perversity and infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, which otherwise have been passed on proper appreciation of evidence as well as the law, as such, the same are upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.