"Child Rape Worst Form Of Lust For Sex, Nothing More Obscene, Barbaric Than It": Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Convict's Appeal

Refusing to overturn a judgment of the trial court convicting an accused of raping and murdering a 9-year-old girl, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that child rape cases are the cases of the worst form of lust for sex, where children of tender age are not even spared in the pursuit of sexual pleasure.

Stressing that there cannot be anything more obscene, diabolical, and barbaric than this, the Court further remarked thus:

"It is a crime not only against society but against the entire humanity. Many such cases are not brought to light because of the fact that social stigma is attached thereto. According to some surveys, there has been a steep rise in child rape cases. The children need more care and protection not only by the parents and guardians but also by the Courts and society at large. In such cases, the responsibility is equally there on the shoulders of the Court so as to provide proper legal protection to these minor victims. Children are the natural resources of our country and are also the country's future. In our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position and one of the modes of her exploitation is rape besides other modes of sexual, emotional, and financial abuse."

With this, the bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice N. S. Shekhawat upheld the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal holding the accused guilty of raping and murdering a 9-year-old girl and convicting him under Sections 363, 376(2)(f), 302, and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and awarding him a life sentence.

"Having played with the life of a minor child aged about 9 years, which has been proved by the prosecution by leading unimpeachable and cogent evidence, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal and uphold and affirm the same," the Court remarked as it dismissed the plea of the accused challenging the judgment and order of his conviction.

The case in brief

The father of the 9-year-old victim lodged an FIR alleging that the appellant-convict, on April 30, 2009, came to his house and kidnapped his minor daughter 'A' (victim) and took her away on his bicycle, this fact was witnessed by his son Manish (PW-3/brother of the victim).

Thereafter, the father and the brother of the victim made their endeavor to trace out the victim, but could not succeed and the next morning,  they found the dead body of the victim in the fields in a nude condition. On the basis of the statement of the father, an FIR was registered under Sections 363, 376(2), and 302 of IPC against the present appellant, and the police machinery was set into motion.

The appellant was apprehended by the police and he made his disclosure statement disclosing that he had kept concealed a bag in the corner of the fields of maize and parked his bicycle on the Railway Station, Palwal, which was used in the commission of offence.

After due appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonemnt. Challenging this order and judgment, the accused moved to the High Court.

High Court's observations

The High Court took into account the fact that the complainant/father of the victim was subjected to incisive cross-examination and he withstood the same and that he had no reason to depose falsely against the appellant or to falsely name him as a culprit in the instant case. The Court found his testimony to be truthful.

Regarding the evidence of PW-3 Manish (11-year-old brother of the victim), the Court noted that had seen the appellant taking away his sister/ victim 'A' on his bicycle in the evening and that he knew the appellant because he had been coming to their home in connection with his work. The Court observed that the facts deposed by him were consistent and his sole testimony was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.

In view of this, the Court discarded the arguments of the defence that since both PW-2 and PW-3 were interested witnesses, thus their testimony should be ignored. The Court observed thus as it noted that the trial court had rightly placed reliance on their testimonies:

"In fact, PW-3 Manish was the most natural witness and the appellant was known to him. Even he was the brother of the victim and his presence near the place of occurrence was natural. Still further, even he was subjected to cross-examination and his testimony was found worthy of placing reliance and was consistent. Still further, no reason for falsely implicating the appellant or any ill-will on the part of the said witnesses has been suggested to both the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 Sunil and PW-3 Manish."

Further, the Court also rejected the argument of the defense claiming alibi as the Court concluded that they had miserably failed in proving the plea of alibi and the testimonies of the two witnesses. Consequently, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, the High Court uphold and affirm the same. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case title - Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana [CRA-D-825-DB-2012 (O&M)]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 266

Click here To Read/Download Order