DHEERU @ DHIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE informant Chandra Mohan lodged a report (Ext. Ka -2) against accused persons, namely, Dhirendra Singh alias Dheeru and Girdhari Lal on 26.06.1999, at 4:00 p.m. in Patti Sitolsyun, Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal, in respect of the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 IPC. In the complaint (Ext. Ka -1), it was alleged that accused Dheeru committed rape with informant's minor daughter. When the mother of the victim noticed that the victim was having enlarged belly, she enquired from her about the same. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother. Accused Girdhari Lal threatened the informant with dire consequences. Accused Dhirendra Singh, who committed rape with informant's daughter, absconded. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused Dhirendra alias Dheeru in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and against Girdhari Lal for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge against the accused Dhirendra alias Dheeru were framed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and charge against accused Girdhari was framed in respect of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) FOUR witnesses, namely, PW 1 Chandra Mohan (father of the victim), PW 2 Kumari Sangeeta (victim), PW 3 Mansha Lal and PW 4 Dr. Smt. S. Uniyal (Medical Officer) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. Accused Dhirendra said that he was implicated on account of enmity with the informant. Accused Girdhari Lal said accused Dhirendra had no occasion to be in the grinding mill. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted accused Dhirendra alias Dheeru of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - with regard to offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Co -accused Girdhari Lal was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.

(3.) PW 1 Chandramohan was the father of the victim, who said, among other things, that his daughter Sangeeta was aged 15 years when the incident took place in January, 1999. She was a student of class VII. The accused persons were the co -villagers. The accused Dheerendra committed rape with his daughter. The incident was narrated by PW 2 to PW 1 that when PW 2 went to the grinding mill, accused Dhirendra committed rape with her. PW 1 gave a report regarding the incident to S.D.M., Pauri and proved his complaint (Ext. Ka -1). He said that he did not disclose the month and day of the incident to Tehsildar. (This statement was given by PW 1 perhaps because the dispute was amicably settled by them outside the Court). Such compromise was not permitted within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Even the same could not be permitted by the Court in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160.