Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh@Meshi vs State Of Haryana on 15 February, 2025
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M)
(1)
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CR
CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision
Decision:- 15.02.2025
Ramesh @ Meshi ... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, for
Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. Appellant - Ramesh @ Meshi assails judgment dated 03.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which he has been found guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 & 506 IPC and sentenced as under:
Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 376 IPC Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay 452 IPC a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a 506 IPC fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.201 No.201 dated 02.10.2006 registered at Police Station Taraori, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC IPC, at the instance of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (2) Nirmala, mother of the prosecutrix, wherein she alleged that she and her husband work as labourers and that on 02.10.2006, her husband left for work at about 8.00 AM A and she also proceeded for work to Anaj Mandi, Taraori ori leaving their three children at home. At about 3.00 PM, when she returned home, she heard cries of her eldest daughter (pro (prosecutrix). She knocked at the door and from the door she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was lying on her daughter (prosecutrix) committing sexual intercourse. She raised alarm upon which Ramesh @ Meshi, who is their neighbourer ran away after pushing her. The complainant's daughter (prosecutrix) disclosed to her that she had been raped by the accused. The complainant further stated therein that while leaving, Ramesh @ Meshi issued threats that in case the incident was disclosed to anybody, then he will kill he her.
r.
The complainant noticed that 'Salwar' ' (lower worn by the ladies) was stained with blood. At about 5.00 PM, when complainant's husband returned home, he was apprised appri ed about the incident and thereafter, the complainant, the prosecutrix and her husband proceeded towards Police Station, and while on the way met SI/SHO Braham Singh at Sonkra Bridge, who recorded the statement of the complainant.
3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police during the course of which the police visited the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.P-18.
Ex.P 18. Broken piece of bangle found lying at the spot was also taken into possession. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from the Civil Hospital. The clothes of the prosecutrix were sealed and sen sent to FSL. The accused was arrested on 02.10.2006 itself. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C.
VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentCRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (3)
4. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused/appellant in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
Sessions Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal framed charges against the accused for offence offences punishable under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC on 20.03.2007 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 PWs. The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder:
hereinunder:-
PW-1 Dr. Kishan Kant, Medical Officer, HC Taraori, stated that on 02.10.2006, he had medically examined Ramesh @ Meshi, who had been brought to the hospital by SI/SHO Braham Singh and that upon medical examination, he opined that Ramesh @ Meshi was capable of performing sexual intercourse.
PW-2 Dr. Anju stated that on 02.10.2006, she had examined the prosecutrix and had found that hymen had been torn and margins abraded and bleeding was present. She opined that there was every possibility that it was a case of sexual assault. She proved the MLR as Ex.P4.
PW-3 EHC Satbir Singh stated that on 02.10.2006, he was posted on general duty at Police Station Taraori and had been entrusted with 3 envelopes by ASI Ishwar Singh with a direction to deliver the same to the Illaqa Magistrate, SSP, Karnal and to DSP DSP, which he acco accordingly delivered.
PW-4 ASI Ishwar Singh stated that on 06.10.2006 06.10.2006, he was posted as ASI Police Station Taraori and that upon receipt of written ruqa (Ex.P5) sent by SI/SHO Braham Singh, he had recorded formal FIR Ex.P6 and had thereafter handed over 3 envelopes containing VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (4) special report to EHC Satbir Singh for the purpose of delivering the same to the Illaqa Magistrate and to senior police officers.
PW-5 Vir Shakti Singh, Singh Draftsman, stated that on 08.10.2006, he was posted in Police Lines, Karnal and that on the request of ASI Jasbir Singh, he had visited the place of occurrence and had prepared site plan Ex.P7.
PW-6 ASI Jasbir Singh stated that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, he had taken tthe prosecutrix to the hospital for her medical examination and that after the he medical examination was conduct conducted, Dr. Anju handed over a copy of MLR and other sealed parcels, which were taken into possession.
PW-7 HC Parveen Kumar stated that on 02.10.2006 while he was posted at CHC Taraori, he was associated with investigation of the case and that after medical examination of the prosecutrix, the Doctor had handed over a sealed parcel alongwith envelope and a sample seal, which he delivered to SI Braham Singh on the same day.
PW-8 Nirmala (complainant) at whose instance FIR was lodged stated in tune with the version recorded in the FIR. She categorically stated that on 02.10.2006, when she returned home from work at about 3.00 PM, she heard cries cries of her daughter and when she went inside the room, she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was raping her daughter and that thereafter the accused ran away after pushing her and while issuing threats of dire consequences in case she disclosed about the incident to anybody.
PW-9 Prosecutrix fully supported the case of the prosecution while stating in tune with the statement made by the complainant i.e. her mother to the effect that on the day of occurrence while her parents were away for work,, she had been raped by the accused VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (5) and that when her mother returned, the accused ran away pushing aside her mother and that he (accused) also threatened her that in case she disclosed about the incident to any anyone, he would kill her.
PW-10 Dr. Lajja Ram, Ram, who had radiologically examined the prosecutrix to determine her age, opined that she was aged about 15 years. He proved his report as Ex.P-11.
Ex.P PW-11 HC Sher Singh, who iss a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.P 17 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 02.10.2006, he Ex.P-17 was posted as MHC and that on the said day, SI/SHO Braham Singh had deposited parcel containing broken bangle, parcel containing clothes of prosecutrix, prosecutrix, parcel of vial of swab, an envelope addressed to Director, FSL, Madhuban, parcel containing underwear of accused, another envelope addressed to the Director, FSL, Madhuban and two sample seals. He further deposed that on 09.10.2006, the case property w was handed over to Constable Ashok Kumar for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of Director, FSL, Madhuban, which was accordingly deposited. He further deposed that as long as case property remained in his possession, the same were not tamper tampered with.
PW-12 Constable Ashok Kumar stated that on 09.10.2006, he was posted on General Duty in Police Station Taraori and on the said day, MHC Sher Singh had handed over to him the parcels for depositing the same with FSL, Madhuban Madhuban, which he deposited on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with.
PW-13 Inspector Braham Singh stated that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as SHO, Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, Nirmala Devi alongwith her husband and daughter had met him at Sonkra culvert (bridge) and had got her statement (Ex.P5) recorded on the basis of which FIR was lodged. He stated in detail with regard to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (6) the investigation conducted in the matter and proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of the same. He documents/memos stated that upon conclusion of investigation, he had prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused w was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. In his defence, accused examined DW-1 DW Jeeto,, who stated that Nirmala Devi (complainant) is her real sister and that on 02.10.2006, she alongwith longwith other members of her family and neighbourer was present in front of her house and had not seen any untoward incident in the house of Nirmala. She further stated that on the day of occurrence, she was not called by any police official and it was after about 2-3 2 days, she was taken to the Police Station by her sister Nirmala where her signatures were taken on blank papers. She further stated that Nirmala was having a dispute with Ramesh regarding some amount, which was borrowed by her.
7. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had successfully successfu y proved charges framed against the accused under Sections 376, 452 & 506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 03.11.2008,, the accused ha has preferred the instant appeal assailing the findings of the trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (7) case and that the complainant has deposed falsely against the appellant and her presence at the spot is highly doubtful. It has been submitted that even the testimony of the prosecutrix i.e. PW PW-9 suffers from various discrepancies which show that she had also deposed falsely. It has been submitted that there are various inconsistencies as regards the place and time of occurrence, which go to the root of the case and under these circumstances, conviction of the appellant could not sustain an and was liable to be set aside.
9. Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that the complainant and the prosecutrix have both stated consistently on all the material aspects of the case and that the medical evidence also fully corroborates the ocular version and that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court, Court which may warrant any interference.
10. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case.
11. The case of the prosecution regarding the charges of rape by the appellant mainly rests on the testimonies of prosecutrix and of her mother apart from the medical evidence. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was aged about 11-12 11 12 years. Ossification test for determining the age of the prosecutrix was conducted conducted and as per the opinion of PW PW-10 Dr. Lajja Ram,, the age of the prosecutrix was opined about 15 years. The prosecutrix while in the witness-box witness box as PW PW-9 stated in clear and VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (8) unambiguous terms that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 02.10.2006 on the day of Dussehra, Dus , while her parents were away, accused Ramesh came to her house at about 3.00 PM and asked for water and when she did not give water, he forcibly lifted her and took her inside a room and raped her.
She stated that he took off her clothes as well as his own clothes and that she was crying and had raised alarm and when her mother came, she narrated the incident to her. She further stated that immediately when her mother had entered the room by opening the door, the accused pushed her aside and ran away from the spot. She further stated that the accused threatened that in case she disclosed about the incident to any anyone, he will kill her. She stated that when her father returned home, she alongwith her parents went towards Police Station and met the police at Sonkara pulia (bridge) where their statements were recorded.
12. PW-88 Nirmala (complainant) has also stated consistently as regards the case of prosecution. She stated that at about 3.00 PM, when she returned home, she heard cries of her daughter and when she went inside the room, she saw that Ramesh was lying over her daughter and committing rape.
She stated that while her daughter was completely naked, the accused had taken off his pant, but but was wearing his shirt. She stated that she had initially peeped through the door and when she went inside, the accused pushed her and ran away from the spot while issuing threats of dire consequences to her. She stated that when her husband returned home, she alongwith her husband and daughter went to lodge report to the police and thereafter her daughter was got medically examined at the hospital.
VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentCRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) (9) Both the aforesaid PWs were cross-examined cross examined at length, but both of them remained firm on their statements on material aspects and nothing could be elicited so as to doubt their credibility in any manner.
13. During uring the course of arguments, arguments, the learned counsel referred to some inconsistenc inconsistencies while referring to the cross cross-examination of the prosecutrix, wherein she stated that the accused after entering the house had asked for water and that she had accordingly brought water from the tap and given to the accused, whereas in her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix had stated that she refused to give water. Further, learned counsel while referring to the site plan pointed out that although the complainant claims claim she had peeped inside from the door, but as a matter of fact no door is fixed in the room where the occurrence took place. It has also been submitted that as per site plan, there is no verandah outside the room, but PW-9 PW has referred to a verandah verandah.
14. Upon perusal of the site plan, we find that a verandah does exist outside the room adjacent adjacent to the room where occurrence took place. The site plan shows that the house has a main door, whereas the rooms do not have a door. When the complainant refers to peep through the door, obviously it was the main door she would have been referring to. In any case, such like inconsistencies or discrepancies do not erode tthe credibility of the prosecution story particularly when the testimonies of the prosecutrix and of the complainant are consistent on all the material aspects pertaining to the allegation of rape.
rape VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) ( 10 )
15. Apart from the aforesaid ocular version, the case of th the prosecution stands fully supported and fortified from the medical evidence in the shape of statement of PW-2 PW Dr. Anju,, who had medically examined the prosecutrix on the day of occurrence itself. The relevant extract from her statement is reproduced hereinunder:
here "On examination injury No.1 slight swelling with redness present on the upper lip.
Secondary sexual characters well developed. Examination of breast; Bilaternal breast on both sides well developed. Axilliary hairs developed. No mark of injury present anywhere on breast. Per Abdomen Examination: Soft no fresh mark of injury present anywhere.
Menstral history: No menarchae then local examination genitalia. Pubic hairs developed. Not matted. No fresh ma mark of injuries present on thighs and external genitial ogans. Labia are opened by gentle traction only. Hymen is torn posterialy and in the middle of the hymen. Torn hymen margins abraded red bleed on touch and congested. Per vaginal examination: Vaginal Vaginal orifice admits one finger easily and the fingers with slight difficulty as the patient feeling pain. Uterus is Nulliparous size anteverted slight bleeding present on fingers of gloves during vaginal examination.............
In my opinion: there is the every ppossibility that it was the case of sexual assault."
assault.
16. The aforesaid witness was briefly cross cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited so as to doubt either the veracity or her opinion. As such, we find that the medic medical evidence is fully in consonance with the case of the prosecution to the effect that the prosecutrix had been subjected to forcible intercourse.
VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentCRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) ( 11 )
17. The he witness examined by the accused i.e. DW-1 Jeeto does not advance his case in any manner. Although some suggestion had been given to PW-88 Nirmala (complainant) ( during her cross cross-examination that in fact the prosecutrix was having an affair aff ir with someone else, who had committed the offence, but the said aid suggestion was denied and in any case is a hollow ollow suggestion without there being any evidence to substantiate th the same.
18. In view of the aforestated discussion, we do not find any ground to take a view different from the one taken by the trial Court as regards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution prosecution has fully established the charges framed against the accused by leading ocular and medical evidence. The sentence as imposed by the trial Court is also commensurate with the heinous nature of offence coupled with the fact that the appellant was a previous convict having been convicted in respect of FIR No.162 dated 12.07.2000 registered at Police Station Sadar Pipli, District Kurukshetra under Section 302 IPC and was undergoing life sentence. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
19. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance.
(GURVINDER GURVINDER SINGH GILL GILL) JUDGE 15.02.2025 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document