CHINTA RAM ALIAS CHINTU Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Sessions Judge Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2013, State versus Chintaram @ Chintu, whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 376, 452 and 506 of IPC. Under Section 376 IPC, he has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 20,000, in default of payment of which, he has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months; u/s 452 IPC, he has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default of payment of which, he has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months; and u/s 506 IPC, he has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of which, he has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant is father of prosecutrix. He made a complaint on 4.10.2013 at P.S. Kaladhungi District Nainital stating therein that he is a labour. His wife died about 8/9 years ago and mostly he remains outside his house due to his labour work and his children remain alone at his house. On 3.10.2013, when he came to his house in the evening, then his daughter (prosecutrix), age about 14 years, told him that on 28.9.2013 at 11-12 in the night, accused entered into thier house and forcibly committed rape with her and also threatened her for dire consequence, if she discloses this incident to anyone.

(3.) On the basis of the said complaint an FIR No. 57 of 2013 was lodged against the accused/appellant under Sections 376 and 452 of IPC. The investigation of the case was handed over to PW5 Sub Inspector Vijay Prakash. On 04.10.2013, the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Bhawana Joshi, Medical Officer. She opined that as no live or dead spermatozoa was found in vaginal smear examination therefore no definite opinion regarding rape could be given, but possibility cannot be ruled out that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault. The medical officer advised x-ray of the prosecutrix for age determination. As per the radiological report, the prosecutrix was less than 15 years. On 05.10.2013, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the spot and prepared the site-plan, arrested the accused person and after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 376, 506 and 452 of IPC.