ALTAF Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 17/3/2021/19/3/2021 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2016, State v. Altaf alias Mehtab, by the court of Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Ss. 376 (2) (f), 506 IPC and Sec. 5(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act") and has been sentenced as hereunder:-

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. The victim, a girl aged thirteen years, was in her house, where, according to the prosecution, on 6/5/2016 at 03:30 p.m., she was raped by her father. One person, namely, Imran was at the gate, when the occurrence took place. According to the FIR, the appellant also threatened the victim to life. Somehow, on 18/6/2016 at 11:30 p.m., the victim along with her mother reached the house of the informant (sister of the victim's mother). An FIR was lodged on 19/6/2016 by the informant and a case under Ss. 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Act was lodged. The victim was medically examined on 20/6/2016. In the history portion, the doctor recorded that, according to the victim, her father was intoxicated with some drug. After that he sent both his wives to fetch some medicine and asked one of his friends to stand outside there. Thereafter father of the victim did unwanted things with the victim and discharged outside. After that, the mother of the victim came back. The victim revealed the incident to her. But, the victim was asked to take bath and wash the clothes. The doctor found no injury on the person of the victim. Even her hymen was intact. The victim was examined under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") on 21/6/2016. The Investigating Officer ("IO") also collected the record pertaining to the date of birth of the victim; prepared site plan and thereafter submitted chargesheet against the appellant and the co-accused. On 27/1/2017, charges under Ss. 376 (2) (f), 506 IPC and 5(n)/6 of the Act were framed against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses i.e. PW 1, the informant; PW 2, the victim; PW 3, the doctor, who medically examined the victim; PW 4 Deshraj; PW 5 SI Khasti Bisht, IO; PW 6 constable Chetan Singh, scriber of the chik FIR; PW 7 SI Rekha Danu, the second IO; and PW 8 SI Radhika Nabiyal, the third IO.