'Not Natural For A Father To Stake Minor Daughter's Honour To Avenge A Dispute': Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In A Rape Case
The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man accused of committing the offence of rape against an 8-year-old girl as it observed that it is not natural for any father to stake the honour of his minor daughter to avenge a previous dispute, that too by falsely alleging that she has been raped. The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice...
The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man accused of committing the offence of rape against an 8-year-old girl as it observed that it is not natural for any father to stake the honour of his minor daughter to avenge a previous dispute, that too by falsely alleging that she has been raped.
The bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV dismissed the appeal filed by the accused as it concluded that the trial court, after proper appreciation of the evidence, had rightly convicted the accused-appellant under Section 363, 366-Ka and 376(2)(f) IPC.
The prosecution’s case in brief
As per the prosecution’s case, on June 10, 2010, the informant/complainant's children were playing outside the slums/Jhuggis (in Noida) when the informant had gone to work as usual. At about 11:30 AM, the accused-appellant came there in a car and lured the victim aged about 8 years and 3-4 other children who were playing there and made them sit in the car.
After covering some distance, he took off all the children except the victim from the car and thereafter, he raped her and threw her on the side of the road near A-Block Sector 62, Noida, where she was found injured with bleeding.
The victim was taken to the hospital in an injured position for medical examination where she was medically examined. A written Tehrir was presented by the victim's father in the police station concerned whereupon an FIR was lodged.
Following an investigation and a trial in the case, the trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty and convicted him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order of conviction, the present appeal has been filed by the accused applicant.
Submissions made before the HC
The counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the accused-appellant was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness of the occurrence.
It was strongly contended that there was a prior dispute between the accused-appellant and the parents of the victim. Thus, he had been falsely roped in this case. It was lastly argued that even if the appellant is found guilty, he has already served imprisonment of more than 13 years, thus, he should be considered for imprisonment already undergone.
On the other hand, the AGA refuted the argument by submitting that the victim was about 8 years old at the time of the incident, hence, considering the act committed by the accused, no sympathy was required in such circumstances.
High Court’s observations
Perusing the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case, the Court noted that the informant/father of the victim withstood a lengthy cross-examination wherein nothing had been extracted so as to disbelieve his statement.
The Court further noted that PW3, a child who was playing with the victim at the time of the incident had also supported the prosecution’s case and admitted that he had seen the accused taking the victim with him.
Regarding the credibility of the victim’s statement, the Court noted that even she had clearly alleged that she was raped by the accused and she even explained the incident in detail, which the Court found to be trustworthy.
Regarding the evidence of the doctor who examined the victim after the incident, the Court noted that the doctor had clearly stated that the possibility of sexual assault on the minor victim could not be ruled out.
“So far as discrepancies, variation and contradiction in the prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with the submissions raised by learned counsel and the witnesses PWs 1 (father), 2 (victim), 3 and 4 supported the prosecution case as witnesses. All four witnesses withstood lengthy cross-examination but nothing adverse material could be brought on record so as to disbelieve their statements. There is nothing in cross-examination which may render their statements doubtful. Naturally, some minor contradictions and discrepancies have occurred in their examination but they do not go to the root of case.”
Against this backdrop, the Court observed that from the evidence on the record as well as the specific implication of the accused by the victim herself, it could be concluded that the prosecution had clearly succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of this, the Court dismissed the appeal, however, the Court found it appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court, and hence, the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) IPC was converted to 14 years rigorous of imprisonment.
Appearances
Counsel for Appellant: T.K. Mishra, Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav, Gaurav Kakkar, Rajeev Kumar Rai, Shyam Lal
Counsel for Respondent: Govt. Advocate Arun Kumar
Case title - Sonu @ Pinku vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332 [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2202 of 2013]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 332