RAJENDER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) SINCE aforesaid two criminal revisions have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity. PW 1 Harphool Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka -1) to Station Officer, police station, Jhabreda on 17.02.1999, alleging the facts contained therein that he was a resident of village Sadoli, falling within the jurisdiction of police station, Jhabreda. On 07.02.1999, his wife was in bereavement and had gone to village Shimlana after hearing news about the death of her relative. His daughter (Pritam) went to school on 08.02.1999. She was a student of class X. She was aged about 16 years as on the date of incident. PW 1 himself had gone out of the village for earning his wages. When PW 1 came back in the evening, he found that his daughter was not at home. PW 1 thought that his daughter might have gone to the house of her maternal uncle at village Manakpur. On 09.02.1999, PW 1 again went to earn his wages. His wife returned home on 09.02.1999. She also made a search for her daughter. PW 1 and his wife made a frantic search for their daughter (PW 2), but to no avail.
(2.) IT was further alleged in the complaint (Ext. Ka -1) that on 12.02.1999, at around 11:00 P.M., PW 2 entered into the house. Wearing apparels of PW 2 were torn and she was weeping. She told her parents that on 08.02.1999, when she was on way back to her house, after attending the school, she waited for the bus at the bus station. On having found that no transport was available there, PW 2 started for her house on foot. She reached near Birju Ka Bagh. The same was situated in between her school and village. Raj Kumar alias Chotu and Rajender, who were the residents of Manakpur -Adampur, came in an Ambassador car. They old PW 2 that they would drop her at her village. PW 2 declined. PW 2 used to go to Manakpur -Adampur alongwith her mother. She knew that Raj Kumar and Rajender were the persons of bad antecedents. Accused persons dragged her (PW 2) inside the car on the point of knife and threatened her that she would be killed if she raised alarm. PW 2 raised an alarm, but nobody came for her help. Accused persons kidnapped PW 2. PW 2 also informed PW 1 and his wife that she was kept inside a room in Delhi. Raj Kumar sexually assaulted her. Accused Rajender kept her confined in a room. She was taken back to her village subsequently and was set at liberty in the dead of night. PW 2 was also threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody. It was further alleged by PW 1 that he went to police station, Jhabreda, but Station Officer, Jhabreda had gone somewhere. PW 1 was asked to come again and, therefore, he could lodge the complaint only on 17.02.1999.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the FIR was delayed but the delay in lodged the same was sufficiently explained. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harpal Singh and another us State of Himachal Pradesh, : AIR 1981 SC 361, that the delay in lodging FIR in rape cases is obvious. Sometimes the reputation of a family is at stake, and sometimes it is otherwise.
After the investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC were framed against the accused Raj Kumar. Charges under Sections 363, (sic) IPC were framed against the co -accused Rajender. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. PW 1 Harphool Singh (informant and father of the victim); PW 2 Km. Pritam (victim); PW 3 S.I. S.P. Bishnoi (I.O.); PW 4 Dr. Urmila Bohra (Medical Officer), PW 5 Dr. Yogesh Kumar (Radiologist) and PW 6 H.C. Chintamani (formal witness) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some important documents, including High School Mark -sheet of the victim, were also filed on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar convicted Raj Kumar and Rajender under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and were sentenced appropriately. Accused Raj Kumar was also convicted under Section 376 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2003. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar, vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2008. The judgment rendered by the Asstt. Sessions Judge was affirmed. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2008, the above mentioned two criminal revisions were preferred by the convicts.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.