Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Accused has been sent for trial for the offences under Section State Vs. Rakesh Kumar U/s 366/376 IPC PS Dabri 366/ 376 IPC.

2. The brief facts as per prosecution story, it is alleged that on 24.01.2009 Mrs. Meena Tiwari, w/o Late Sh. Rama Kant Tiwari got recorded her statement stating therein that she is residing at RZ­59/234, Dayal Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi alongwith her three children and brother Atul and on 17.01.2009 the prosecutrix (name withheld as per dicta of superior courts) aged about 15 years had gone to fetch milk at about 07:00 pm but she has not returned and her missing report was also lodged and she has further stated that now she has came to know that the accused Rakesh S/o Kailash Prasad has enticed away the prosecutrix, her daughter, on the basis of the statement of complainant, FIR under Section 363 IPC was lodged. Investigation was handed over to SI Narender Singh who tried to trace the prosecutrix but neither the accused Rakesh not prosecutrix could be traced. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to SI Satdev Singh. During investigation IO on the basis of the call details of the mobile phone tried to trace the accused but neither the prosecutrix nor the accused Rajesh could be traced. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to ASI Kailash Chand Saha and the prosecutrix was got recovered from Sitapuri Bus Stand on 11.06.2009 and State Vs. Rakesh Kumar U/s 366/376 IPC PS Dabri the medical of the prosecutrix was conducted and she was found to have been assaulted sexually. After medical of the prosecutrix the seal parcels were got deposited with the MHC(M) and the prosecutrix was produced before the concerned court for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr PC and the prosecutrix was found to be minor and the accused forced her to go into for illicit intercourse against her consent. Thereafter Section 376 was added. The accused was apprehended and arrested and the school certificate of the prosecutrix was taken as per which her date of birth is 10.12.1993 and she was found to be minor. During investigation statement of witnesses were recorded and the accused was charge sheeted under Section 373/376 IPC. Chargesheet was filed and thereafter FSL report was filed by way of supplementary chargesheet.

26. The testimony of PW­5 is in contradiction to the documents placed on record because as per the testimony of PW­5, prosecutrix was admitted in VI class at school in Oraiya and as per Ex. PW10/D, namely, the application for admission filed by the mausi of the prosecutrix, she has sought admission in class VIII, as per entry number 482. Similarly in the affidavit Ex. PW 10/C, Smt. Ranjana Shukla, mausi of prosecutrix, has State Vs. Rakesh Kumar U/s 366/376 IPC PS Dabri deposed that the prosecutrix has sought admission in class VIII. Another discrepancy in the Ex. PW 10/A is that for all the entries bearing number 464 to 482, it is reflected in each entry that from where the student had passed out the VII class, but so far as entry regarding the admission of prosecutrix is concerned i.e. entry no. 482, it is not mentioned from where she had passed out VII class and the said column is left blank. Furthermore, all the other entries in Ex. PW10/A are filled in the handwriting of the same person except that of the prosecutrix. Handwriting with which all the other entries in Ex. PW10/A are filled is uniform in nature so as to infer that the said entries have been filled by the same person but the entry against the name of prosecutrix is with different handwriting and not matching with the handwriting of the other entries which leads to be irresistible conclusion that the entry against the name of prosecutrix is filled in later on. Therefore, it can be safely held that the evidence of PW­5 is in contradiction to the testimony of PW­10 as well as the documents proved by PW­10. PW­5 stated that she passed out V class from Delhi and thereafter, she got admitted in 6th class in Oraiya but as per Ex. PW10/A, Ex. PW10/B, Ex. PW10/C and Ex. PW10/D, the prosecutrix got admitted in class VIII whereas as per State Vs. Rakesh Kumar U/s 366/376 IPC PS Dabri testimony of PW­5, she should have got admitted in class VI at Oraiya. Otherwise also, in Ex. PW10/A, the entries pertaining to the prosecutrix appears to be inserted later on in order to create evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix. This aspect of evidence can be looked from another angle as Ranjana, mausi of prosecutrix has mentioned in the affidavit, Ex. PW10/C, the date of birth of prosecutrix, but the source from where she had received the information regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix is not coming forth as neither PW­5 nor PW­10 has disclosed the source from where the date of birth of the prosecutrix was entered in the school record.

30. Now coming to the question whether accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix or not.

31. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and State Vs. Rakesh Kumar U/s 366/376 IPC PS Dabri no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or substantial, which may lend assurance to her testimony. In this regard, I found support from Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P.& Anr. , AIR 2003 SC 818, Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 508.

38. She further admitted that in Jaipur, she had gone to the hospital for her bone age test where various tests for her age determination were done. She further admitted that she did not complaint to any doctor or staff against accused that accused had forcibly brought her to Jaipur. She further admitted that she got married with the accused at Arya Samaj Mandir at Vidya Nagar and there also she did not complaint to anyone that the accused State Vs. Rakesh Kumar U/s 366/376 IPC PS Dabri had scolded her or threatened her. She further admitted that she did not tell anybody in the temple that the accused was getting married to her against her wishes. She further admitted that she did not complain to anyone in village Sarol, Haryana where she resided with the accused in a rented accommodation. She stated that she studied in Delhi in Vanasthali public school. She further admitted that in her statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C. she had deposed that she had gone with the accused out of her own free will and he should not be punished for this. The prosecutrix has made three statements at three stages and she has contradicted her testimony with her statement Ex. PW 8/C recorded U/s 164 Cr. P. C. wherein she stated that she has accompanied the accused for watching a movie on 17.1.2009 and after return at home she was seen in the company of the accused and she was scolded by her parents and she called the accused to come near the shop and she agreed to go with the accused and marry him and they went to Jaipur. But in her statement before the court, she deposed that she was enticed and forcibly taken by the accused at different places to Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan and she admitted that there were so many persons in the bus and other public transport with she was taken by the accused but she did not complain to State Vs. Rakesh Kumar U/s 366/376 IPC PS Dabri anybody nor she raised alarm. She further stated that she gone for ossification test at Jaipur as deposed by DW­1. In cross­examination, she further admitted that she had gone to the temple for marriage but she did not complaint to anybody including the priest who performed the marriage that she had been forced by the accused to marry him. From the testimony of the prosecutrix it appears that she had accompanied the accused on her own free will and she was roaming with him voluntarily. Otherwise, natural conduct of the prosecutrix should have been that as and when she got opportunity to raise alarm at any public place, she would have raised alarm. From the above findings, it is clear that the prosecutrix had accompanied the accused on her own free will.