Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2003. Case: Rajinder @ Raju Vs State of Himachal Pradesh. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 10 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 670 of 2003
CounselFor Appellant: Ashok Mathur and Anshul Narayan, Advs and For Respondents: Naresh K. Sharma, Adv.
JudgesV.S. Sirpurkar and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
IssueIndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 376
CitationAIR 2009 SC 3022, 2009 CriLJ 4133, JT 2009 (9) SC 9, 2009 (9) SCALE 176
Judgement DateJuly 07, 2009
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

R.M. Lodha, J.

  1. Rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. The murderer destroys the physical body of his victim. Rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. [State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 384]

  2. First, a brief reference to the prosecution case. The prosecutrix (name with-held by us), a young girl about 18 years of age, was staying with her parents in village Kothi, district Bilaspur, (H.P.). The accused, Rajinder@Raju, resident of village Duhak, district Bilaspur, had taken contract for laying G.I. Pipelines in village Kothi near the residence of the prosecutrix. In that connection, he used to store his material in the house of prosecutrix' parents. On January 16, 1996, prosecutrix had some throat pain. When the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix and came to know that the prosecutrix has been suffering from throat pain, he suggested to the mother of the prosecutrix that his cousin at Ghumarwin was a doctor and if permitted, he could show the prosecutrix to his cousin. The mother of the prosecutrix agreed. The accused took the prosecutrix on his scooter at about 3.00 P.M. Instead of taking the prosecutrix to Ghumarwin, he took her to Jablu stating that he had to collect the rent from his tenants. From Jablu, the accused took prosecutrix to Berthin. The accused reached Berthin at about 8.00 - 8.30 P.M. alongwith the prosecutrix. At Berthin, the accused bought some sweets and told the prosecutrix that he would take her to his house as it was dark. The accused instead of taking her to his house, took the scooter to some kachha road and made her to get down from the scooter. After spreading his pattu on the ground and gagging the prosecutrix mouth made her lie down; untied her salwar and committed the sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The accused then left her leaving behind his pattu and torch. After the accused had left, the prosecutrix saw some light from a house down the road. She walked upto that house and told the lady, Smt. Bimla Devi, (PW-2) residing there, of the incident. The prosecutrix stayed overnight in the house of PW-2. PW-2 told the whole incident to her husband (PW-3). In the morning PW-3 called villagers; the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by one of the villagers viz., Roop Singh (PW-4). The FIR was then registered at the Ghumarwin Police Station. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined. The Investigating Officer took the apparel of the prosecutrix in his possession and the same was sent for chemical analysis alongwith vaginal slide and underwear of the accused. During the investigation, it also transpired that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

  3. The Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, framed a charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution examined the prosecutrix (PW-1), Smt. Bimla devi (PW-2), Suram Singh (PW-3), Roop Singh (PW-4), Smt. Sheela Devi (PW-5), Prem Singh (PW-6), Dr.S.C. Kaushal (PW-7), Police Officials (PWs 8 to 12) and Dr. Savita Mehta (PW-13).

  4. The Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied his involvement in the crime and set up the defence that the case against him has been engineered at the behest of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6. He also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that mother of the prosecutrix (PW-5) had taken timber worth Rs. 5,000/- and when he demanded payment of due amount, PW-5 demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him and said that after payment of the aforesaid amount only she would finish the case against him.

  5. The Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on consideration of the evidence on record, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 3(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but convicted the accused under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation for the graver offence under section 376 IPC only.

  6. The accused challenged his conviction and sentence before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused. Hence the present appeal by special leave.

  7. Mr. Ashok Mehta, the learned Counsel for the accused did not dispute before us that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at the time and place of occurrence. The thrust of his contention was that the accused did not commit the alleged act forcibly; rather such act was committed by the accused with the consent and free will of the prosecutrix. The aforesaid contention was argued before the High Court as well and the following circumstances were pressed into service viz., that the prosecutrix at the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
9 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • Evolving Victimological Jurisprudence: A View from Supreme Court Cases
    • India
    • Journal of National Law University New Delhi No. 3-1, August 2015
    • 1 August 2015
    ...and its traumatic effect on a rape victim, referred 55 AIR 2005 SC 402.56 State of Orissa v. Thaka ra Besra and Anr AIR 2002 SC 1963.57 AIR 2009 SC 3022.58 State of Madhya Prad esh v. Babulal AIR 2008 SC 582.59 2002 (3) ACR 2220 Evolving Victimological Jurisprudence2015-2016] 45the observat......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT