Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 6 POCSO in Ajeet Singh Constable vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 22 December, 2022Matching Fragments
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Fatehpur in Special Trial No. 110 of 2015 (State vs. Ajeet Singh Constable); whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under sections 376 IPC read with Section 3 (ii) (v)/ 3 (i) (xii) SC/ST Act and Section 5/6 POCSO Act and consequently sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and in default thereof, he has to further undergo 6 months additional simple imprisonment; rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 3 (ii) (v) SC/ST Act and in default thereof he has to further undergo 6 months additional simple imprisonment; and 5 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 3 (i) (xii) SC/ST Act and in default thereof, he has to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment with an observation that all the sentences are to run concurrently.
9. After recording of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence were put to the accused-appellant for confronting him with the same under Section 313 Cr.PC. In his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant denied his involvement in the commissioning of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. Sections 3 (ii) (v)/ 3 (i) (xii) S.C./S.T. Act and also Sections 5/6 POCSO Act and also the charges levelled against him. In the said statement, the accused-appellant has specifically stated before the trial court that since he always reprimanded the first informant/ P.W.-2 and that is why he has been implicated in this case to teach a lesson to him, and he is otherwise innocent.
10. From the materials placed on record it appears that the statement of the victim (P.W.-1) was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she did not allege the commissioning of rape upon her by the accused-appellant but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded before the Magistrate concerned, she disclosed about commissioning of offence of rape upon her by the accused-appellant.
11. The trial court after relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and recording its finding that the incident happened around 4:30 a.m. in the morning and after the incident, a quick first information report was registered within about quarter to four hours in the morning of the incident as evident from the evidence of the first informant/P.W.-2 and PW-8. The fact of rape by the accused-appellant has been conclusively proved by the evidence of the victim and admittedly the accused-appellant was working in Police Station-Malwan before the incident. The accused-appellant was known to the people of Malwan area. In the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it was said by him that he was entrapped in rivalry, but no rivalry was explained by the defence side, so that the presumption under section 29 of POCSO Act could not be dislodged. After perusal of all the above evidences, the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO Act has been found proved against the accused-appellant. On the basis of aforesaid finding, the trial court has come to the conclusion that against the accused-appellant Ajit Singh Sipahi for the offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code read with section 3 (ii) (v)/ 3 (i) (xii) of S.C./S.T. Act. And Section 5/6 POCSO Act, the prosecution has been successful in proving the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 (ii) (v)/ 3 (i) (xii) of the S.C./S.T. Act and also Section 5/6 PCOSO Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with fine as referred to above.
16. It is also argued that no F.S.L. report and D.N.A. test report is on record. The place where the accused-appellant was caught by the informant/P.W.-2 is also not shown in the site plan. The torch by which the accused-appellant was recognised by the victim, has not been recovered and produced before the trial court so that the same may be proved. According to the medical examination report no offence of rape as alleged by the prosecution has been committed by the accused-appellant upon the victim. Subsequent change of the stand by the victim does not find any corroboration from the materials available on record and, therefore, the trial court has grossly erred in relying upon the statement of the victim as P.W.-1 while her statement ought to have been subjected to greater scrutiny. It is also argued that in such circumstances the conviction of the accused-appellant under Sections 376 IPC read with Section 3 (ii) (v)/ 3 (i) (xii) SC/ST Act and Section 5/6 POCSO Act cannot be legally sustained on the cumulative strength of aforesaid and the same is liable to be quashed.