AJEEM PARVEJ Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction dated 27.03.2013, rendered by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2012, State vs. Ajeem Paruej @ Banti. The said trial pertains to Crime No. 72 of 2011 Police Station Pithoragarh, wherein the accused/appellant was tried for the offence under section 376 of I.P.C. and section 3(1)(XII) of the SC/ST Act. The trial culminated into conviction for the offence of section 376 of I.P.C., while for the offence of 3(1)(XII) of the SC/ST Act, he was acquitted. The learned Judge has appropriately sentenced the appellant. As disclosed in the First Information Report lodged by Kumari Aakriti Napalchyal, the accused and informant both hail from Dharchula (Tehsil Head Quarter of District Pithoragarh), wherein the accused used to run a shop of mobile repairing as well as its sim recharging. Km. Aakriti was student of Intermediate in the year 2010. She used to visit the shop of the accused for recharging her mobile. The accused began to court her and for that used to oblige Km. Aakriti by way of not receiving any money in lieu of recharging her mobile and he did not receive the money despite of her insistence the payments of such recharging. In the month of November 2010, she came to Pithoragarh to pursue her graduation studies, hired a room for rent to dwell in. The accused explore a chance and came to Pithoragarh. He stayed in a hotel titled as "Punetha Inn". He made a ring call at about 7.00 pm to Km. Aakriti there. She honored his call and went to the place of his stay in the hotel. He insisted her to have cold drink and the drink was laced with some intoxicant. Despite her resistance she was persuaded to consume the same, which made her semi unconscious over night. Abusing such position of Km. Aakriti appellant done sexual intercourse with her. Having regained her consciousness in the morning, she found herself nude. That apart, the accused made video clipping of her nude body and this fact was revealed when after almost eight months of the incident, the appellant strived to blackmail her by way of airing her nude photos to the local people at Dharchula. The accused was doing so with the help of Information Technology (Bluetooth) and circulated the same nude photos using that technology. Thus, her nude position was exposed in the cell phones of everybody in the town. These photos were noticed in their cell phone by the family members of the victim, and she was informed accordingly. Hearing this, she came to Dharchula from Pithoragarh and lodged the First Information Report (Ex. ka1) on 13.08.2011. The statement of Km. Aakriti was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on 17.08.2011. The said statement is Ex. ka2. She has narrated the same version in her statement before the Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The police investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the appellant for the offence of section 376 of I.P.C. and section 3(1)(XII) of the SC/ST Act. Charges were levelled by the learned trial judge, accordingly, and the appellant was put to trial. After the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellant simply denied the occurrence and expressed his ignorance from any fact of the case.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant as well as the State counsel, it appears that Km. Aakriti PW 1 has been examined in the court and she has deposed that appellant Parvej @ Banti was in acquaintance with her. He also lives in her native town Dharchula. He runs a shop of cell phones including its repairing and recharging the sim cards. Whenever, she went to get her mobile flexi, he refused to take the money from her, despite her insistence to take the money. In November 2010, she came to Pithoragarh to pursue her studies in B.A. 1st Year and hired a rented accommodation there. Even when she was living at Pithoragarh, accused was in the habit of pestering her by way of making the repeated calls on the cell phones. He used to insist her for meeting, despite her reluctance and refusal.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel of the defense has vehemently argued that this prosecution case should be thrown away just on the ground of inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report inasmuch as the same was lodged after almost eight months of the incident. This Court is not inclined to accept such defence argument because the delay has been explained by the victim in her deposition. Her statement that "when in the next morning she found herself bare bodied lying on the bed in the hotel room then immediately she put her on clothes and left that hotel and came to her room. She could not disclose what happened to her on account of shame and fear thinking that the disclosure of the incident will defame not only her chastity but also to her parents so she could not muster the courage to reveal the incident to anybody and keep the same in her heart. This is not natural for such a girl who had just attained the age of majority. The inherent bashfulness of a girl or woman always prevents her from disclosing such an incident in Indian Traditional Society and this is the reason such a crime remains unreported many a times. The learned court below has also expressed its observations and views inconformity of the concept herein expressed above. I am in full agreement with the views of learned trial judge and those have been propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court time and again in a catena of judgments. One of the significant judgment of such incident is State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others : AIR 1996 S.C. 1393 which is as under: