TASKEEN @ TEHSEEN Vs. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Takseem @ Tehseen has challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.06.2013 rendered by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, finding him guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC. He has appropriately been sentenced. Sessions Trial No. 146/2008 pertains to the Crime No. 139/2009, Police Station, Dalanwala, District Dehradun, proceeded to try for the offences under Section 368 and 376 IPC. Trial culminated into acquittal of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 368 IPC, but he was found guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

(2.) The incident took place on 22.07.2008, when the victim Km. Rina, a young girl of about 19 1/2 years age, was enticed away by the appellant on the pretext that the friend of Ms. Rina (the sister of the appellant) was waiting nearby. So, she accompanied with the appellant in the close vicinity of the market, where she was going to purchase the form for the admission in the college. When, Ms. Rina reached at the destination, she did not find her friend Ruby there. At this, appellant asked her to wait for Ruby. She was made to sit there in a room. After a minute, the appellant closed the door of the room and bolted it from the inside and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse.

(3.) The learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence that the bed sheet was found human semen smeared. That apart, human semen was also found on the under garment of the appellant and breaches (Salwar) of the victim. Even accepting that on all these clothes human semen was found, the oral as well as other documentary testimony needs to be meticulously looked. Km. Rina (PW1), who was at least more than 19 years old at the time of the incident, has accepted in so many words about the courtship with the appellant and she wanted to marry him, but he was not ready for it. It is further stated by PW1 that if Takseem (accused/appellant) had accepted her proposal of the marriage, she would have forgiven him. It has been further stated by PW1 that it was correct to say that report was lodged against the appellant in order to mount a pressure upon him to enter into wedlock with her. The arguments advanced by the prosecution is that in the chief examination of PW1, it has been stated by the victim Km. Rina that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant. The learned Trial Court considering the presumption as to the absence of consent in the cases of rape, as envisaged under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, has convicted the accused.