Severity: Warning
Message: fopen(/var/www/html/lawsisto/application/writable/pcfx_session_btqhqsa3u2ssm4rk5ncehhkub9ofveaf): failed to open stream: No space left on device
Filename: drivers/Session_files_driver.php
Line Number: 172
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 173
Function: _ci_load_library
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 192
Function: library
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 153
Function: libraries
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/third_party/MX/Loader.php
Line: 65
Function: initialize
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/application/modules/welcome/controllers/Legal_news.php
Line: 6
Function: __construct
File: /var/www/html/lawsisto/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once
This case is about the appeal before the honourable Himachal Pradesh High Court by the appellant, Mr Vikram Khimta through the learned Advocate Mr Anoop Chitkara. The appeal was filed under Section 374(II) of The Criminal Procedure Code. Section 374(II) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the person convicted on a trial held by Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by another Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted in the same trial may appeal to the High Court.
In this case, according to the initial record of the prosecutrix filed in the FIR No.36/2013 dated 16th of June 2013, it was observed that the appellant and the prosecutrix belonged from the same college. On 13th of June 2013, the appellant called the prosecutrix to meet him and the later went to Rohru to meet him. On meeting, the appellant pressurized her to marry him and eventually took her to Shimla. They reached Shimla around 5 pm on the 14th of July 2013. In Shimla, the appellant took her in the house of his friend Atul. There the prosecutrix stated that even though she tried to make the appellant understand about the situation, the appellant tried to force her for sexual activities and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. From Atul's house, the appellant took the prosecutrix to the house of his god-sister Minakshi, where again he committed sexual intercourse against her wishes. After that, the appellant fled away and the appellant's parents beat her. She further stated that the appellant threatened her that he will kill himself by consuming poison if she does not come to meet him. She wanted to take legal actions against him and also stated that she wanted to be medically examined. After the FIR was filed, police got the prosecutrix and the appellant medically examined. However, the medical officer opined that there were no signs of the prosecutrix of undergoing any sexual intercourse lately. The Medical Officer further stated that this does not suggest that the appellant cannot perform any sexual intercourse. After a thorough investigation, Police produced a challan in the court and eventually the case came before the Additional Session Judge Shimla. The trial began and the proceedings of the Trial continued. The statements were also recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. At that point of time, the prosecution produced pieces of evidence and there were twenty-eight witnesses for the case. However, the appellant did not produce any pieces of evidence in his defence.
On 30th of September 2016, learned Additional Session Judge on basis of the material evidence that was produced before the Court by the prosecution held that now appellant as accused. He was accused of committing offences under Section 366 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal code. Section 366 of IPC states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with the intent that she may be compelled; or knowing it to be likely that she will be comp[elled to marry to any person against her wish or will or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse shall be punished with a term that may be extended to ten years and shall also be liable with fine. Section 376 of IPC states that whoever except in the cases provided in the subsection (2) of the same statute commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either a description for a term of not less than ten years or which may extend to life and shall also be liable with fine. And his parents Sikander Khimta and Sunita Khimta were also accused of committing offences under Section 323 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 323 states that whoever except in the case provided for Section 334 i.e. Voluntarily causing hurt on Provocation, voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to thousand rupees or with both. Section 506 of IPC states about the punishment for criminal intimidation.
However, the learned counsel of the then accused stated that there have been a lot of erroneous circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution and appeared before the High Court regarding the conviction of the accused, against the judgement passed by Additional Session Judge on 30th of September 2016. Mr Anoop Chitkara stated that there have been contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix. In her initial statements that were recorded, she stated that she was in talking terms with the appellant for the last three weeks. But in her statement that was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she stated she had met the appellant in the last two to three weeks as he was her senior in the college. Similarly, in another instance, it was observed that she stated that the appellant called her to meet him at Rohru but in the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC she stated that the appellant called her to home. It was observed that the statements of the complainant were juxtaposing each other. The advocate of the appellant also stated that there were no signs of sexual intercourse in the medical report. The advocate of the prosecution stressed on the evidence previously produced and on the witnesses.
The High Court looked on the various aspects on the case and also took references of cases like Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of MP and others, T Subramanium v State of Tamil Nadu etc. Finally, the honourable High Court held that the statements put forward by the prosecution are untrustworthy and full of contradictions. And the evidence produced was not appropriate in nature. Thus the appellant-accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 376.
86540
103860
630
114
59824
Severity: Warning
Message: session_write_close(): Failed to write session data (user). Please verify that the current setting of session.save_path is correct (/var/www/html/lawsisto/application/writable)
Filename: Unknown
Line Number: 0
Backtrace:
