BHUPATBHAI DEVJIBHAI HAVLIYA - RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Over and above the oral evidence, the prosecution adduced following documentary evidences: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_69_LAWS(GJH)6_2018_1.html</FRM> After availing the due opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections and 0 of the IPC so also under Sections and of the POCSO Act vide judgment and order dated .09.0. The aggrieved appellant-convict is, therefore, before this Court.

(2.) Learned Advocate, Mr. N.R. Kodekar, appearing for the appellant-convict urged, in his detailed submissions, that the FIR was lodged belatedly and that, itself, creates a doubt in the story put forth by the prosecution. He urged that the version given by the prosecutrix is not at all believable. Moreover, there is no independent witness in respect of any of the details that she has stated. It is, further, his case that the prosecution case does not get any support from the medical evidence, and therefore also, a serious error is committed by the trial Court in believing the story of the prosecution. He took this Court through the various documentary as well as the oral evidence and emphasized that all the witnesses are interested witnesses. There are enormous contradictions in the version given to the police and the one stated before the Court by most of the witnesses. Moreover, the history given by the prosecutrix before the doctor also clearly indicates that there was no act of rape committed. There being perforation on the private part of the prosecutrix which could be for various reasons and the same cannot be attributed to the appellant-convict. Particularly, when there is no external injury found on the person of the victim. It is alleged that she had been threatened with knife, however, no knife was either recovered or discovered and that will create a serious doubt about the story of the prosecution. He urged that only on the basis of conjunctures and surmises, the judgment and order of conviction has been passed.

(3.) Learned APP, Mr. Chintan Dave, appearing for the State vehemently urged that this is an open and shut case. Late filing of the complaint will have no relevance, whereas, the prosecutrix is only 13 years of age and the accused was four times her age and supposed to be respectable elder in the vicinity, and therefore, no leniency be shown. He urged that the prosecutrix was 13 years of age, at the time of incident, and therefore, she was not so young as not to understand what was happening with her. He also has, further, argued that in a case like the present one, where the prosecutrix is very young, it is difficult for the parents to lodge a criminal complaint, since, ordinarily the mentality of the people is to sweep things under the carpet, particularly when, it generally brings stigma with such a case comes out.