Dheeraj And Others vs State Of Haryana

Sr. No.,Section,Sentence,Fine

1,366/34 IPC,"Rigorous imprisonment for

a period of 10 years","Rs.10,000/- each. In default

of payment of fine, convicts

shall undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period

of one year.

2,376(2)(g) IPC,"Rigorous imprisonment for

a period of 14 years.","Rs.10,000/-each. In default

of payment of fine, convicts

shall undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period

of one year.

3,506/34 IPC,"Rigorous imprisonment for

a period of two years.","Rs.2,000/-each. In default

of payment of fine, convicts

shall undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period

of one month.

share the incident with family members and thereafter by the family members to take a decision to report the matter to the police.,,,

On adverting to the present case, the prosecutrix returned back to her house and did not go to the school on the following day. She narrated the",,,

incident to her parents on the following day of occurrence and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police.",,,

Faced with this situation, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that clothes of the prosecutrix were torn and the the same",,,

would have been noticed by her parents on the day of occurrence itself. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that the perusal of the record",,,

indicates that the shirt had torn from the neck and the arm and slight damage to the clothes may not have been noticed by the parents of the,,,

prosecutrix as she may have gone back to her house in a clandestine manner as she never wanted to share the incident with her parents on the day of,,,

occurrence. She deliberated with her parents on the following day and the matter was reported to the police. In such circumstances, there is sufficient",,,

explanation to justify the delay in reporting the matter to the police. Moreover, it is not a case of inordinate delay. Furthermore, the material on record",,,

does not indicate that a false, coloured, concocted or exaggerated version has been put forth as a result of afterthought.",,,

With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, the deposition of the prosecutrix while appearing in the witness-box as PW1 and her father who",,,

appeared as PW4 is to the effect that she was aged about 14 years. Even the age as recorded in the MLR is 14 years. Tejbir, PW15 is working as a",,,

Teacher and Bimla Dhaka is working as a Principal in Government Senior Secondary School, Gandhra wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix has",,,

been recorded as 24.10.1996. It is emerging in the statements of these witnesses that her date of birth was recorded on the basis of school leaving,,,

certificate of middle school. The prosecutrix had taken admission in their school in 9th Standard. It is not emerging on record as to on what basis the,,,

date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 24.10.1996 in the school record. No record of the school where prosecutrix was earlier studying or,,,

birth certificate is coming forth. Dr. T.S.Bagri, PW5 had conducted the X-Ray examination for determing the age of the prosecutrix and as per his",,,

report Ex.P2, the probable age as per the ossification test was 16 to 19 years. In such circumstances, it can be concluded that the age of the",,,

prosecutrix exceeded 16 years at the time of occurrence. It may be noted with significance that it is not a case of the defence that the prosecutrix,,,

was a consenting party. In such circumstances, the controversy with respect to the age of the prosecutrix pales into insignificance.",,,

The prosecutrix has stepped into the witness-box as PW1 to testify with regard to the allegations against the appellants. Her father has stepped,,,

into the witness-box as PW4 but he is not a witness to the occurrence and has deposed on the basis of the information received from the prosecutrix.,,,

There cannot be any bar to base the conviction on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. It sounds unnatural that the prosecutrix will put her honour,,,

and that of her family at peril to falsely implicate a distant relative. The learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out certain improvements and,,,

discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix.,,,

However, such improvements and discrepancies cannot be termed to be significant enough to discard the genuineness of the version as put forth by",,,

her. It has been pointed out that in the statement Ex.PB recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the prosecutrix had stated that the occurrence",,,

took place in the moving vehicle whereas while appearing in the witness-box it has been stated that the accused had taken the vehicle to an isolated,,,

place and was stopped. It may be mentioned here that the first version of the case has been unfolded in the complaint Ex.PA wherein it has also been,,,

mentioned that the van was stopped at a lonely place after covering a distance of 2 Kms. Moreover, when a young unmarried girl is being sexually",,,

ravished by three persons, it sounds unnatural that she can remember the entire sequence of events with mathematical certainity. In such",,,

circumstances, the improvements and discrepancies as sought to be pointed out do not in any manner render the version of the prosecutrix to be",,,

doubtful. The version as put forth by the prosecutrix is found to be credible, consistent, and does not suffer from any basic infirmity which may render",,,

the same to be doubtful.,,,

With regard to the appellant Nos.2 and 3, it has been sought to be argued that they have not been named in the FIR and no test identification",,,

parade has been conducted. It may be mentioned here that Dheeraj-appellant No.1 was a relative of the prosecutrix and known to her. It is quite,,,

natural that other two occupants of the van were not known to her, being strangers. However, the test identification parade is required to be",,,

conducted to get lead during investigation and the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded on the score that no test identification parade has been,,,

conducted. The identity of all the appellants is sufficiently proved and established as during the course of her statement in the Court, the prosecutrix",,,

has identified all of them. Merely because the dock identification is not preceded by TIP, it cannot be said that the dock identification has no value.",,,

The dock identification is the substantive piece of evidence and fairly reliable in the instant case.,,,

The argument put forth on behalf of the appellants that the vehicle is not connected with the commission of crime is liable to be rejected. Although,",,,

Naresh PW6 has testified during his cross-examination that the van was impounded by the police as he was not carrying the documents of the van.,,,

He got the van released on 'superdari' which was taken in custody in this case. Had his van been impounded without any documents, he would have",,,

been issued a traffic challan. There is nothing to suggest that any such challan or document impounding the vehicle was issued which tends to falsify,,,

the version as sought to be put forth by the appellants that the vehicle has been falsely implicated in the instant case.,,,

It shall not be out of place to mention here that additional evidence is available in the instant case from the medical and forensic evidence adduced,,,

on record. As per the MLR, following injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix.",,,

“1. Black Eye â€" Lt. bruising around Lt. Eye Reddish blue color abrasion below Lt. Eye 4x3 Cm. Advised X-Ray facial bones.,,,

Abrasion over neck & near chin area .5 Cm. Advised X-Ray Facial bones.,,,

Abrasion over Rt. Chest area of varies size 1x02 CM, 3x0.5 Cm. over Rt. Side of upper part of chest of near right Clavicle reddish blue in color",,,

advice X-Ray chest AP & lateral. Blunt â€" KUO â€" within 72 hrs.,,,

Abrasion over anterior abdomen Multiple of various sizes from 6x0.2, 10x0.3cm over entir expect of lower & middle abdomen advise USG in a",,,

ultrasound, Reddish blue color Blunt -KUO-within 72 hrs.",,,

Over Rt. Thigh multiple abrasion of various sizes 6x0.2 cm-10cm.x0.3cm. Reddish blue in color over anterior expect of Rt. Upper one third of,,,

Thigh. Advised X-Ray AP & lateral Blunt-KUO-within 72 hrs.,,,

Abrasion over over back Lt. Side near Scapula 10x0.3cm or 6x0.2cm. PV â€" hymen ruptured admits two fingers redness present, tenderness",,,

present bleeding present - Spotting.â€​,,,

Furthermore, as per the report of the Forensic Science",,,

Laboratory semen was detected not only from the salwar and shirt of the prosecutrix but also from the underwears of the appellants No. 1 and 2.,,,

Even the blood was detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix which indicates that she was sexually exploited by the appellant Nos. 1 and 2.,,,

The accused had put forth a defence version to the effect that Savita, DW1, the sister of Dheeraj was married with the cousin of the prosecutrix.",,,

The father of the prosecutrix was having dispute with the husband of Savita, DW1 and consequently, a false case has been foisted upon them. It",,,

sounds unnatural that the father will put the honour of the family and the prosecutrix at stake to falsely implicate a distant relative. Moreover, it is also",,,

emerging in the statement of the prosecutrix that her father was having dispute with her mother and she was residing at the house of her maternal,,,

aunt at Village Salhawas for the last two months from the date she deposed in the Court. As the prosecutrix was residing separate from her father on,,,

the day of her deposition in the Court, it cannot be said that any pressure was working upon her mind to falsely implicate the accused at the instance",,,

of her father. In these set of circumstances, the prosecution has successfully proved and established the guilt of all the appellants beyond the shadow",,,

of reasonable doubt and the conviction has been correctly recorded. The judgment of conviction is accordinlgy upheld.,,,

With regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned here that the appellants are suffering incarceration since the day of their arrest.",,,

They have faced trial for a period of about four years. All of them have undergone custody for a period of more than 8 years. In such circumstances,",,,

the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon appellant No. 1â€" Dheeraj and appellant No. 2-Krishan with regard to the offence under Section 376,,,

(2G) is reduced to 10 years. The substantive sentence of imprisonment with regard to the other offences and the amount of fine imposed and,,,

imprisonment in default, shall remain intact.",,,

With regard to Rakesh Kumar, appellant No.3, it may be mentioned here that he was driver of the van in which the occurrence took place. The",,,

allegations with regard to the forcible sexual intercourse have not been attributed to him and the same have been attributed to his co-accused. As per,,,

the proviso to Section 376 (2) IPC for the adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, a sentence less than 10 years can also be",,,

imposed. Keeping in view the fact that the commission of forcible sexual intercourse has not been attributed to Rakesh Kumar-appellant No. 3; he has,,,

already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than 8 years; it has also been reported that his conduct in the jail is satisfactory and has not,,,

committed any jail offence, he is directed to undergo imprisonment for a period already undergone without any alteration pertaining to the sentence",,,

with regard to the fine and default sentence imposed upon him.,,,

With the aforesaid partial modification in the quantum of sentence, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.",,,

Since the main case has been decided, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.",,,