STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. MOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Mohan Lal And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Pw1 Km. Chhavi Kunj, daughter of Mohan Lal, lodged an FIR against Ashok, Mohan Lal and her step mother on 12.09.2000, at 12:10 P.M., in police station, Dalanwala, District Dehradun, which was registered as case crime no. 400 of 2000, under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC. The incident allegedly took place on 15.07.2000. After the investigation, a charge-sheet against Mohan Lal (father of the victim) and Ashok was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 376 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 Part II of IPC was framed against the accused-respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) Pw1 Chhavi Kunj, PW2 Smt. Vidya Devi and PW3 Dr. Renuka Naithani (Medical Officer) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Genuineness of the documents on record was admitted by learned counsel for the accused-respondents. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. Accused Mohan Lal, father of the victim, said that the victim tendered evidence against him on the direction of her mother. He also said that a litigation between him and his wife (PW2) was pending and, therefore, the victim gave evidence at the instance of PW2.
Accused-respondent Ashok Kumar said that since his sister has filed cases against Rajesh, in which he was doing pairavi for Rajesh, therefore, he was falsely implicated at the instance of PW2. Documents were filed in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge / F.T.C. VII, Dehradun, exonerated the accused-respondents of the charge levelled against them, vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2003. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW1 (victim), who was daughter of accused-respondent Mohan Lal. PW1 said, in her examination in chief, that her mother was Smt. Vidya Devi (PW2). PW1 was living with PW2 on the date of deposition. PW1 said that she was living with her father (Mohan Lal) at Chander Road when the incident took place. PW1 also said that a divorce suit was pending between her mother and her father. Her mother and her father lived separately. PW1 had three brothers, namely, Ajay, Alok and Ravi. Ajay lived with his father.
Alok and Ravi lived with her mother. PW1's father remarried. The name of her stepmother was Kamlesh. Kamlesh was also the maternal aunt (mausi) of PW1. Whereas PW1's mother wanted her (PW1) to live with her (PW2), PW1's father refused the same. Her mother and father were living separately since 1993. In the initial years, her father behaved properly with the victim. After two years, accused Mohan Lal, father of the PW1, started assaulting her. PW1's stepmother was serving in a bank.
PW1 used to go to the market and come back in the evening. PW1's brother Ajay was also serving. PW1 herself went to school. She also went for tuitions sometimes. She used to come back to her home in the evening.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.