HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. -
(1.) P .W. - 1, the victim, gave birth to a child on 18th April, 1996. P.W. - 2, father of the victim, lodged a First Information Report on 13th May, 1996. P.W. - 3 is a formal witness, who recorded the Chik First Information Report. P.W. - 4 is the Investigating Officer. It was alleged in the First Information Report that P.W. - 1 was raped by the appellant. In course of evidence, P.W. - 1 stated so. In answer to questions, put under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant denied the prosecution story. The prosecution offered the appellant to give blood for the purpose of matching his DNA with the DNA of the child, begotten by P.W. - 1. Appellant refused to give blood. When P.W. - 1, in course of recording of evidence, asserted that she had been raped by the appellant, she made it clear that the intercourse, that the appellant had with her, was without her consent. In a situation of this nature, lodgment of the First Information Report belatedly is of no consequences. Inasmuch as the defence refused the entire story, as made out by the prosecution, and inasmuch as appellant refused to participate in DNA matching of the child with his, the Court was bound to take adverse inference against the appellant. In the circumstances, despite most sincere efforts made by the learned Amicus Curiae, he has not been able to make out a case where this Court can interfere in the appeal. The sentence is for seven years and that being the minimum awardable under Section 376 of I.P.C., there is no scope of interference. In the circumstances, the appeal fails; the same is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
(2.) LET a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below along with the lower court records.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.