KARANPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2011, State Vs. Karanpal by the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:

(2.) Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 03.01.2011 at about 4:00 PM, PW1 father of the victim was guarding his mustered crop in the field, when his daughter PW2 the victim, reached there and asked him to go back home, as her maternal uncle had arrived there. Leaving the victim in the field, PW1 father of the victim came to his house. After an hour, when PW1 father of the victim and his brother-in- law PW4, both went back to the field, they did not find the victim. They searched for her. They heard her, crying in pain. They could locate that in the adjoining field PW2 the victim was lying in a pool of blood in disrobed condition. The victim was taken to the hospital. Medical was conducted and a report of the incident was lodged by PW1 father of the victim on the same day, at 9:00 PM at the police station. Crime No. 2 of 2011, under Section 307 IPC was lodged at the police station. In fact, prior to the lodging of the FIR, the victim was medically examined at 8:10 PM, on the same day by PW10 Dr. A.K. Paliwal at HMG Hospital, Haridwar. The victim was referred to another hospital, therefore, after lodging the FIR, the victim was again examined at Government Women Hospital, Haridwar at 10:40 PM by PW7 Dr. P.R. Pandey. The victim was unconscious; she was yet again referred to higher center; she was thereafter admitted in the Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun, where she remained hospitalized for a long.

(3.) Investigation was carried out by PW8 Sub-Inspector, Sanjeev Kumar. He prepared the site plan, took into custody the plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. He also recovered hair from the place of incident. He took the sample of hair from the appellant and sent them for forensic examination. The clothes of the victim and the appellant were also recovered. According to the prosecution, on 08.01.2011, when the appellant was interrogated again, he confessed his guilt. His confession was recorded and it is, thereafter, he recovered his blood stained clothes. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. Cognizance taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. On 21.05.2011, charges under Sections 307 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC were levelled against the appellant, to which, he denied and claimed trial.