Allahabad HC Finds Man Guilty Of Raping A 10 Y/O Girl 33 Years After The Incident, Sets Aside Trial Court's Acquittal Order

The Allahabad High Court last month found a man guilty of committing the rape of a 10-year-old girl in May 1988, i.e., over 33 years after the date of the incident. With this, the HC allowed the Government appeal filed in 1989 against the trial court's acquittal order by setting aside the same.

Significantly, the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also observed that a socially sensitized Judge is a better armor in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and complicated provisos.

Stressing that once a person is convicted for an offence of rape, he should be treated with a heavy hand, the Court made the following significant observation:

"An undeserved indulgence or liberal attitude in not awarding adequate sentence in such cases would amount to allowing or even to encouraging 'potential criminals'. The society can no longer endure under such serious threats. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by society in cases of heinous crime of rape and impose adequate sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court."

The case in brief 

As per the prosecution case, an FIR came to be lodged on May 21, 1988 at 18:40 hours by the complainant alleging that her 10-year-old daughter had gone out at 10:00 a.m. to graze goats, and that is when the accused reached at the field and caught hold of his daughter and dropped her on the ground holding her mouth and committed offence of rape.

The charge sheet came to be filed against the accused respondent under Section 376 IPC. The accused respondent was summoned to stand trial. In defence, he denied the allegations and demanded a trial.

No defence witness was produced in the case nad the Trial Court acquitted the accused as it concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court reached a finding that the victim was tutored and that the time of the alleged incident as per the medical expert opinion, did not corroborate with the alleged time of the incident.

Hence, the instant appeal was filed by the Government against the judgment and order dated 25 February 1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad whereby, the accused-respondent was acquitted of the rape charges.

High court's observations 

At the outset, the Court perused the cross-examination of the victim and noted that during the trial proceedings, the Trial Court, the defence counsel and the prosecution, severely grilled the victim, aged about 9-10 years, however, the HC found, she did not budge from the prosecution version.

The Court observed that she identified the accused; categorically stated that the accused respondent committed the offence; stated the time of the incident; explained the site of the incident; and on the specific query as to whether she had deposed on being tutored, she had answered in negative.

Further, the High Court also noted that the testimony of the victim was duly corroborated by the medical expert opinion, the internal medical examination had noted the injury on the private part including blood seen therein; the blood stained underwear of the victim was recovered on the date of incident at the police station, the factum of injury and the blood present on the private part is duly corroborated by statement of the informant, victim and medical expert opinion.

Significantly, the Court didn't concur with the opinion of the trial court that had doubted the medical opinion merely for the reason that in the medical examination report the expert had not mentioned the probable time of the rape.

"The sole testimony of the victim was sufficient to have convicted the accused respondent. In our opinion, the finding reached by the Trial Court is per-se perverse and against the testimony of the victim, duly supported by medical evidence," the Court further held as it allowed the Government appeal and set aside the trial court's acquittal order.

Consequently, the accused was held guilty and convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. Rs.20,000/- of the fine realized from him will be given to the victim towards compensation.

The Court also directed that accused should be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The office is directed to communicate this order to the CJM concerned within a week for compliance.

Additional Government Advocate Vikas Goswami appeared for the state and Advocate Ajay Kumar Srivastava appeared for the accused respondent.

Case title - State of U.P. v. Dharma

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 168

Click Here To Read/Download Order