A jail appeal was raised against the impugned judgement dated 30-11-2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused, was convicted & sentenced for 10 years of R.I & fine of Rs 20,000 u/s 376 of I.P.C, 6 months imprisonment & fine of Rs 500 u/s 342 I.P.C & 2 years of R.I & fine of Rs 1,000 u/s 506 I.P.C.
The victim came to her maternal grandmother's house along with her mother at Hussainpur, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad few days before the incident for harvesting the wheat crops. The accused-appellant Jonny @ Anuj Kumar lived in the neighbourhood house. On 17-4-2013, at around 10:30 am, when the victim was alone in the house, the accused came & told the victim to come to his house, as his mother was calling her.
When the victim reached his house, she didn't found anyone except the accused. He forcefully held her & raped her. He placed a gun on the temple of the girl & continued raping her for 30 min despite her screaming. He threatened the girl not to tell anyone about the incident, otherwise he would kill him. The girl narrated the incident to her mother when she came back from the agricultural land. Thereafter, the victim's mother lodged the complaint in P.S. Muradnagar on the same day at around 4:30 pm.
The investigation was done by S.I Surenda Singh on the complaint made by Rajbiri, mother of the victim. He prepared a site plan on the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses Madan Pal & Smt Vidhya the I.O. A sari covered in blood stain & spermatozoa was recovered. The victim was sent to the hospital for her medical examination. Her statement were taken & she was sent to the custody of her mother. After that victim's statement was recorded u/s 164 of CrPC before the Magistrate. The chargesheet was submitted on 02-05-2013 alleging the accused u/s 376, 342, 502 I.P.C.
A total of 8 witnesses appeared on behalf of the prosecution including the victim herself. The accused's statement was also recorded u/s 313 of CrPC. He denied all the charges framed against him & stated that victim's mother had borrowed Rs 50,000 from his father, which she didn't returned on its demand. A quarrel arose between them where they started abusing each other. And so, victim's mother has made a false case against him due to enmity. The learned Trial Court after hearing all the contentions, evidences, witnesses held the accused guilty & convicted him.
Appellant's Submission :
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted :
Respondent's Submission :
The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted :
Observation of the Court :
The court pointed out that in rape cases, it is difficult to find any corroborative evidences, except the victim herself. Therefore, her witness alone is sufficient to convict the accused, provided if any corroboration is required. Thus, if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the Court, conviction of the accused can be sustained [Vijay v State of M.P (2010) 8 SCC 991]. The court also stated that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case [Gagan Bihari Samal v State of Orissa (1991) 3 SCC 562].
The court however considered that due care & caution must be taken while relying upon the testimony of child witness apart from the circumstances & corroborative evidences [Yogesh Singh v Mahabeer Singh & ors AIR (2016) SC 5160].
The Court examined the testimony of the victim made u/s 164 of CrPC whether it is credible, trustworthy & can be relied upon. Her statement was corroborated by her mother PW 1 & also the medical evidences. PW 3, Dr Raj Bala stated that injuries & redness were present on the private parts of the victim. Besides that, the blood stained sari also strengthened the prosecution case as human blood was found in the forensic reports.
The Court stated that the learned counsel for the appellant did not submit any written agreement before the Trial Court regarding the money dispute between the appellant's father & victim's mother.
After going through all the evidences, the Court did not found the case to be a false implication & stated that :
"It is pertinent to mention here that on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, conviction is sustainable in the eye of Law, without any corroboration of medical evidence".
The court found the appellant guilty however, sentenced the appellant to an imprisonment which he had already undergone.
Judge : Hon'ble Mr Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta.
Case Courtesy : Jonny @ Anuj Kumar v State of U.P