DHEERU @ DHIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Dheeru @ Dhirendra Singh
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) THE informant Chandra Mohan lodged a report (Ext. Ka -2) against accused persons, namely, Dhirendra Singh alias Dheeru and Girdhari Lal on 26.06.1999, at 4:00 p.m. in Patti Sitolsyun, Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal, in respect of the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 IPC. In the complaint (Ext. Ka -1), it was alleged that accused Dheeru committed rape with informant's minor daughter. When the mother of the victim noticed that the victim was having enlarged belly, she enquired from her about the same. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother. Accused Girdhari Lal threatened the informant with dire consequences. Accused Dhirendra Singh, who committed rape with informant's daughter, absconded. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused Dhirendra alias Dheeru in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and against Girdhari Lal for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge against the accused Dhirendra alias Dheeru were framed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and charge against accused Girdhari was framed in respect of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) FOUR witnesses, namely, PW 1 Chandra Mohan (father of the victim), PW 2 Kumari Sangeeta (victim), PW 3 Mansha Lal and PW 4 Dr. Smt. S. Uniyal (Medical Officer) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. Accused Dhirendra said that he was implicated on account of enmity with the informant. Accused Girdhari Lal said accused Dhirendra had no occasion to be in the grinding mill. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted accused Dhirendra alias Dheeru of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - with regard to offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Co -accused Girdhari Lal was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, present Criminal Appeal was preferred. Prosecution led the evidence through PW 2 Km. Sangeeta (victim). In her examination -in -chief, she said that she knew accused persons, namely, Dheeru and Girdhari. Girdari has a grinding mill in his village for a very longtime. The victim was a student of class 7 in January, 1999. Then, she was aged about 15 years. She used to go to grinding mill for grinding of wheat. She went to the grinding mill on 2nd or 3rd January, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. Dhirendra alias Dheeru was present in the mill. He bolted the doors of the mill from inside. He had a knife in his hand. Accused Dhirendra alias Dheeru pressed the mouth of PW 2 and committed rape with her. Accused threatened her with dire consequences, if PW 2 dared to disclose the incident to anybody. PW 2 left for her home thereafter. She did not disclose the incident to anybody. When her belly got enlarged, she told about the same to her mother. On being enquired by her mother, PW 2 disclosed that accused Dhirendra committed rape with her. When the same was informed to PW 2's father, he complained to Girdhari regarding the incident. Girdhari threatened to kill the entire family, if the informant dared to disclose the incident to anybody. PW 2 was taken to the Doctor for medical examination. PW 2 said that a girl child was begotten by her as a result of such sexual assault subsequently. In the cross -examination, she said that she has no other child. She did not have sex with anybody other than accused Dheeru. She was having menstruation when the accused committed rape with PW 2. Her vagina bled when the incident took place. She felt pain while walking. Her wearing apparels were stained with blood. A river was flowing in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. PW 2 declined the suggestion of learned defence counsel that when the accused refused to marry PW 2 only then a report was lodged against Dheeru. She started vomiting after three months of the incident. She also declined that she was aged 18 years, as on the date of incident. When PW 2's father got ill then they (father and the victim on the one hand and the accused on the other) settled their disputes amicably. She also said that she wants to lead her life peacefully. In a way, she has forgiven the accused (Dheeru) for his misdeeds. She also refused the suggestion of the defence that she had intercourse with the accused Dheeru on her own volition. Nothing has come in the cross -examination of PW 2 so as to suggest that she was telling a lie. The evidence tendered by PW 2 inspires confidence. Her testimony is believable. Any prudent person will hold the testimony of PW 2 in good stead. Conviction against the accused Dhirendra sustained on the basis of testimony of PW 2 alone.
(3.) PW 1 Chandramohan was the father of the victim, who said, among other things, that his daughter Sangeeta was aged 15 years when the incident took place in January, 1999. She was a student of class VII. The accused persons were the co -villagers. The accused Dheerendra committed rape with his daughter. The incident was narrated by PW 2 to PW 1 that when PW 2 went to the grinding mill, accused Dhirendra committed rape with her. PW 1 gave a report regarding the incident to S.D.M., Pauri and proved his complaint (Ext. Ka -1). He said that he did not disclose the month and day of the incident to Tehsildar. (This statement was given by PW 1 perhaps because the dispute was amicably settled by them outside the Court). Such compromise was not permitted within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even the same could not be permitted by the Court in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.