Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2014. Case: Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.S. Chandel and Dilip Kumar, Advs. and For Respondents: Govt. Advocate and L.K. Verma, Adv. |
| Judges | Ranjana Pandya, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 145, 164, 313, 437A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 376; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(5) |
| Judgement Date | March 09, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Order:
Ranjana Pandya, J.
-
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 28.1.2014 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act/Additional Sessions Judge in Special Criminal Case No. 91 of 2006 (State v. Dharmendra) arising out of Crime No. 80 of 2006, under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Badausa, District-Banda, whereby the accused was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- with default stipulation.
-
As per the prosecution case, report was lodged by Naraina stating that he is the resident of Village-Dimarauvapurva Majra Pauhar. On 31.8.2006, his daughter aged about 20 years went to chop the fodder from her fields, when she was chopping fodder, the accused caught her from behind, he dragged her and raped her against her wishes. The victim raised hue and cry, but nobody came to the spot. The victim came home and narrated the whole incident. The occurrence took place on 31.8.2006 at about 11/12 in the day time, hence F.I.R. was lodged. Rajendra Singh Solanki, S.I. P.W. 3 who was at the relevant time posted at the police station as Head Constable proved the chik report as Exhibit Ka-3. He further scribed the G.D., which was proved as Exhibit Ka-4.
-
The victim was examined by Dr. Anita Sagar, who proved that there were no injuries on the external part of the body. There were no injuries on the over vulva, vagina, labia majora, miners and clitoris. Hymen was torn and the vagina was admitting two fingers easily. The Doctor found cervical erosion and also found 2-3 cms cervical tear on posterior side, which was stitched by the Doctor. The Doctor proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-5 and Pathological report as Exhibit Ka-6 and supplementary report as Exhibit Ka-5.
-
Investigation was entrusted to P.W. 5 Tejpal Singh, retired Sub-Inspector, who investigated the matter. He copied the chik report and G.D. in the C.D. He recorded the statement of P.W. 3 Rajendra Singh Solanki, informant Naraina and the victim. After that the spot was inspected and site plan was prepared, which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-8. Subsequently, the statement of Gulshan, Kalua and Choudhary were recorded. The underwear of the accused was taken into the possession. His statement was recorded. Further, the statements of S.H.O. D.D. Verma, Sub Inspector Hari Das Prajapati, Constable Mansook Ali, Constable Ram Chandra, witness Chandrika and Haridas were recorded. Further, the injury report of the accused and the victim were recorded in the C.D. The medical reports were also recorded in the C.D. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also copied in the C.D. Petticoat of the victim was taken into possession, which was sent to the Forensic Lab for examination.
-
The investigation was conducted by this witness ended into the charge-sheet, which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-9.
-
P.W. 6 Dr. Gyanendra Nikhra, conducted the ossification test of the victim and proved the radiological report as Exhibit Ka-10 and X-ray plate as material Exhibit 1.
-
The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W. 1 is Naraina, the informant, who lodged the F.I.R., which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-1. He further proved the recovery memo by virtue of which the Petticoat of the victim was taken into possession as Exhibit Ka-2. The victim P.W. 3 is S.I. Rajendra Singh Solanki, P.W. 4 is Dr. Anita Sagar, whose evidence have been discussed by me. Further the evidence of P.W. 5 Tejpal Singh, P.W. 6, Dr. Gyanendra Nikhra and P.W. 7 Haridas Prajapati has proved the recovery memo as Exhibit Ka-11 and the underwear of the accused as material Exhibit 2. P.W. 8 is Ramkishore Tiwari, writer, who proved the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka-12.
-
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the occurrence and stated that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity.
-
After hearing counsel for the parties, learned lower court found the accused guilty and sentence him as has been specified in Para 1 of the judgment.
-
Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come in appeal.
-
I have heard the learned counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial