Gyan Chandra @ Manoj vs State Of Uttarakhand

Lok Pal Singh, J

This appeal has been preferred by the convict through the Superintendent of District Jail, Chamoli assailing the judgment and order dated 21/24.11.2014 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Special Sessions Trial No.06/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 452, 506 and 376 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) read with Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, POCSO). Accused/appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 376 IPC r/w 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO, to undergo R.I. for a period of four years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- u/s 452 IPC, to undergo two years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- u/s 506 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.4.2014 complainant (PW1) lodged an F.I.R. (Ext.A-1) at P.S. Rudraprayag stating therein that the accused/appellant Gyan Chandra is a Sadhu and resides in the Shiv Temple of their village. In June 2013 at about 11:00 AM, accused/appellant entered into her house and taking advantage of the fact that her daughter is alone in the house, committed rape on her and also threatened her for dire consequences. After the incident, the accused/appellant fled away from the spot. Complainant further alleged that in January 2014 accused/appellant had also sent a letter to the complainant wherein he threatened her to marry the victim with him. Since then, the accused/appellant is giving threatening calls to them and is making pressure upon them to marry her daughter with the accused/appellant. Complainant called the accused in her house and as soon as he came into their house, the complainant informed the police whereupon the police arrested him. On the basis of report, Chik F.I.R. (Ext.A-17) was prepared and case crime no.10/14 was registered against the accused/appellant u/s 376, 452, 506 of IPC, as also under the relevant provisions of POCSO Act. Investigation of the case was taken up by the Sub Inspector Sushma Rawat (PW11) who during the course of investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext.A-22). On the same day i.e. 25.4.2014, victim was medically examined by PW6 Dr. Ashtha Bhandari at Government Hospital, Rudraprayag. Medical report of the victim is Ext.A-8. Accused was also got medically examined on the same day by PW4 Dr. Atul Kumar, who after medical examination of the accused, prepared the report Ext.A-3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer also got recorded the statement of the victim u/s 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) and also collected documents relating to date of birth of the victim viz. transfer certificate Ext.A-12, High School mark-sheet Ext.A-13 and admit card of high school examination Ext.A15. On completion of investigation, the I.O. filed the charge-sheet (Ext.A-25) against the accused/appellant, for his trial, under the aforesaid Sections.

Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 376, 452, 506 of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On denial of guilt, trial begun. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined as many as thirteen prosecution witnesses viz. PW1 mother of the victim, PW2 father of victim, PW3 maternal uncle of victim, PW4 Dr. Atul Kumar, PW5 Dr. Sanjay, PW6 Dr. Ashtha Bhandari, PW7 Smt. Kushla Bagwadi, PW8 Sub Inspector Sujan Singh, PW9 Harish Chaudhary, PW10 Head Constable Surendra Dutt, PW11 Victim, PW12 Arun Singh Chaudhary, PW13 Head Constable Beena Ramola, PW14 Sub Inspector Sushma Rawat. Thereafter, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in the form of questions and answers. In reply to questions posed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused replied that the prosecution evidence against him is false. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as stated above.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record.

Learned Amicus Curiae would contend that from the entire evidence on record, it emerges out that there were love affairs between the victim and the appellant and the victim was a consenting party. As such, the trial Court has wrongly held the accused guilty and has wrongly convicted the appellant under the aforesaid Sections. He would further submit that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which is not explained, which creates serious doubt on the entire prosecution story.

Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General would contend that the victim was a minor on the date of incident, hence, consent is immaterial. He would further submit that the appellant sexually assaulted the victim and threatened her for dire consequences. He would also invite attention of this Court to the letters written by the appellant to the victim and her family members.

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the victim was a minor on the date of incident. Sufficient evidence, disclosing the age of victim, were produced before the trial court, on the basis of which the trial court arrived to the conclusion that the victim was a minor on the date of incident. The evidence regarding the age of victim has been well discussed and evaluated by the trial court. High School Marksheet Ext.A-3 is on record, which would reveal that the date of birth of the victim is 1.01.1999. Thus, it is evident that the victim was aged about 15 years on the date of incident.

As regards another argument advanced by learned Amicus Curiae that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R, record reveals that victim did not inform the incident immediately to the parents; when she got pregnant with the child of the accused, the victim eventually disclosed it to her mother. It was for the reason that the appellant was all along threatening the prosecutrix of the dire consequences. After the incident, the accused fled away and remained missing for some months and ultimately when he came back in the village and again started threatening and defaming the prosecutrix and her family members, mother of the victim got lodged the F.I.R.

The settled legal position in sexual offences, especially in rape cases, is that the delay in filing the FIR by the prosecutrix or by the parents in all circumstance is not of significance; delay is not fatal in such type of cases and would not weaken the prosecution case. In these types of cases, sometimes there is fear of social stigma and after giving very cool thought and considering all pros and cons arising out of an unfortunate incident, a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged either by victim or by any member of her family.

Now, the sole question for consideration by this Court is that whether the accused/appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix or not?

PW11 prosecutrix (name withheld), in her statement recorded before the trial court, has deposed that on the date of incident she was studying in class IX. Accused/appellant was a Sadhu in Shiv Temple of their village. In June 2013, she was alone in her house. Her mother had gone to the field. Accused/appellant entered into the house and committed rape on her and also threatened her that if she would disclose this incident to anybody he will kill her and her family. This witness further stated that the accused/appellant committed rape on her twice. She specifically stated that on the second day also, when she was alone in the house, accused entered into the house and again committed rape on her. She had not disclosed about the incident to anyone for two months but thereafter when she fell ill and complaint pain in abdomen, she narrated her ordeal to her mother whereupon her mother took her to the doctor. After medical examination, the doctor opined that the victim was carrying a child which is no more. She further deposed that after the incident the accused has left the village but after some days he came back sent threatening letters to her and her family members. The accused also made threatening calls to them.

On 26.4.2014, statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein also the prosecutrix had stated that on June 2013 she was alone in her house. Taking advantage of it, the accused/appellant entered into her house and committed illegal act with her. Next day again, the accused/appellant forcibly entered into her house and committed rape on her.

PW1 mother of victim, PW2 father of victim, PW3 maternal uncle of victim (MAMA) have also corroborated the statement of prosecutrix and have fully supported the prosecution case. Further, the fact that the victim was pregnant in the past not only gets corroboration from the statements of victim and her parents but also from the statement of PW5 Dr. Sanjay, who in his statement before the trial court, has deposed that on 04.10.2013 the victim was brought to the hospital. She was complaining pain in abdomen. On medical examination, he found that the girl was pregnant in the past.

Apart from above, certain letters which were written to the victim and her family members by the appellant were also produced before the trial court. These letters were exhibited in the trial court and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun for examination. Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun submitted its report and opined that the letters are in the handwriting of the appellant. In the letters, the appellant has admitted his guilt, as also the fact that the victim was pregnant with the child of the appellant.

In the light of aforesaid, having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, it is evidently clear that the appellant sexually assaulted the victim who was a minor on the relevant date and time. Due to said act, the victim also got pregnant. Not only the appellant committed rape with a minor girl (victim) but he also threatened the victim and her family members for dire consequences. He also tried to defame the victim in the society. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt under section 376, 452, 506 of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act. This Court fully concur with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellant.

For the reasons as discussed above, present criminal appeal is devoid of merit. Same is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned where the accused-appellant is lodged. Lower court record be also sent back.