USMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal law was set into motion at the instance of PW1 (complainant and sister of the victim) who submitted a report (Ext. A-1) with P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 28.03.2016 at 21:35 hours stating therein, that her sister, who is a minor was enticed away by accused Usman @ Sameer, r/o House No. 657, Banda Road, Roorkee on 11.03.2016, but father of accused did not permit them to enter the house and instead handed them over to the police. The victim was given in the custody of her father before the Magistrate. On her return back to her house, sister of the complainant told that the accused-appellant took her to hotel Maya Palace on 27.10.2015, where he committed rape forcibly with the victim. Again on 08.01.2016, accused took the victim to Hotel Jewels, Civil Lines, Roorkee and committed rape on the victim against her wishes and threatened her that if she dare to disclose anything to her parents or relatives and will disobey him, he will commit murder of her entire family members.

(2.) On the basis of said report, chik FIR (Ext. A-6) was lodged against the accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and the one under Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The investigation of the case commenced. The I.O. got recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate; got the victim medically examined; arrested the accused and prepared arrest memo thereof, prepared site plan and also took into possession the copy of the school register and transfer certificate. The I.O. also obtained medical report of the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet (Ext A-12) was filed against the accused for his trial in respect of selfsame offences.

(3.) The case was committed to the court of Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar for trial. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(i)(l) / 6 of POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 (complainant and sister of the victim); PW2 Ms. 'X' (victim) (name withheld); PW3 (mother of the victim); PW4 (father of the victim); PW5 Rakesh Chandra (Manager of hotel Maya Palace); PW6 Smt. Rajni Devi (Principal of Moolraj Girls Inter College); PW7 Sanjay Kumar (Manager of hotel jewels); PW8 Constable Gopal Ram (who prepared the Chick FIR); PW9 Dr. Deepa (who medically examined the victim); PW10 S.I. Pradeep Singh Tomar (I.O) and PW11 S.I. Ranveer Singh. However no witness was examined in defence. In reply to questions posed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused replied that he is innocent and the prosecution evidence against him is false. Accused further stated that he was implicated in the crime as he belongs to different religion.