Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:HHC:28531 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. : 137 of 2022 Reserved on : 20th May, 2025 Decided on : 19th August, 2025 Nagender Singh@ Nagu …...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …...Respondent
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant : Mr.
B.
Nandan
Vashishta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Virender Singh, Judge Appellant Nagender Singh @ Nagi has preferred the present appeal, under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.34 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2025:HHC:28531 N/VII/2020/2018, titled as Nagender Singh @ Nagu versus State of Himachal Pradesh.
2. By way of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant, for the offences punishable, under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him as under: Sections Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine 4 of POCSO Act Simple imprisonment for a period of seven years Rs.10,000/ Simple imprisonment for two months. 504 of the IPC Simple imprisonment for a period of two years Rs.2,000/ Simple imprisonment for one month.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
3
2025:HHC:28531
3.
Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:
3.1. The Police of Police Station, Nurpur, has filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, against the accused, on the allegations that the child victim, along with his father, appeared before the police and moved a complaint, disclosing therein, that he is resident of the address as mentioned in the complaint and aged about 16½ years. 3.2. According to the complainant, on 11.07.2017, at about 4.00 p.m., he had taken his herd for grazing towards Gharat forest. After sometime, accused also came there for grazing his herd. His buck came in the herd of child victim. Accused had inquired about the same, upon which, the child victim replied in affirmative. 3.3. Thereafter, accused also sat with him and started doing wrong activities. Initially, the child victim thought that he was joking, but, later on, he allegedly tied his both hands and committed sodomy with him and also threatened him not to disclose this incident to anyone. This act was done by the accused at about 6.30 p.m.
4
2025:HHC:28531
3.4. Thereafter, the accused had gone to his home. The child victim with great difficulty get himself free and came back, along with his herd and disclosed the whole facts to his mother. His mother telephonically informed the father of the child victim and who went to the house of accused and narrated the incident to his father, who had started abusing him and threatened to kill them. 3.5. Thereafter, the child victim has reported the matter by moving the complaint, upon which, the police registered the FIR, and the criminal machinery swung into motion. 4. The child victim was medicolegally examined at Civil Hospital. Thereafter, spot map was prepared, photographs were clicked and videography was done. The child victim has produced the ‘Parna’, which was also taken into possession. 5. Accused was arrested on 12.07.2017, at about 7.00 p.m. He was also medicolegally examined and the physical evidence, so collected by the doctors, upon examination of accused, as well as, the child victim, was sent to RFSL Dharamshala, for examination. 6. Statement of child victim, under Section 164 Cr.PC, was got recorded, by producing him before the Court of learned
5
2025:HHC:28531 ACJM, Nurpur, on 18.07.2017.
As per the documents, the date of birth of the child victim was found to be 21.11.2001. 7. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr. PC, against the accused before the competent Court of law (learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala), from where, the same was assigned to the learned trial Court, upon which, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance. 8. On the basis of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court found a primafacie case against the accused person, for the commission of offences, punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 506 of the IPC, as such, he has been chargesheeted accordingly, vide order dated 22.03.2019. 9. When the charges, so framed, were put to the accused person, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence, to substantiate the charges framed against the accused. Consequently, the prosecution has examined, as many as, 15 witnesses. 6
2025:HHC:28531
10. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused, was put to him, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused has denied the entire prosecution case and took the defence that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and the victim belongs to Rajput caste. His father used to ask me not to come to Gharat Forest to graze goat, though, Gharat Forest belonged to all. It is his further defence that he had not done anything wrong with the child victim. In order to substantiate his defence, he has examined DW1 Pradeep Kumar. 11. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned defence counsel, has convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforementioned. 12.
Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred, before this Court, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences, for which, he has been chargesheeted, as there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 7
2025:HHC:28531
13. Highly relying upon the statement of Dr. Richa Mehrotra, it has been highlighted that no injury was seen around anal orifice, only redness was seen around the anal orifice, though no blood stains marks were seen. In addition to this, the doctor has not noticed cut marks or fissure in the said area. All these facts, have been highlighted by the accused to demonstrate that the learned trial Court has not considered the evidence of PW2, Dr. Richa Mehrotra, in the right perspective. 14. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the crossexamination of PW3 Susheel Kumar. Accused has also prayed that the statement of PW5, is liable to be ignored, being hearsay, as, she has not witnessed the crime in question. 15. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Another fact, which has also been highlighted is that the incident had taken place on 11.07.2017 and the matter was reported to the police on the next day i.e. on
12.07.2017. 16. Highlighting the fact that the child victim and the accused belongs to two different castes and having dispute
8
2025:HHC:28531 regarding grazing right over Gharat Jungle, it is the case of the accused that the case of prosecution is planted and preplanned, in order to take revenge. 17. On the basis of the above grounds of appeal, Mr.
B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate, appearing for the accused, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the accused may kindly be acquitted. 18. The prayer, so made, by learned counsel appearing for the appellantaccused, has been opposed by Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution and defence has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court along with the deposition of the child victim, who, not only narrated the entire case, so set up, by the prosecution, but, also withstood the lengthy crossexamination. 19. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, the conclusion of which, has resulted into the conviction of the accused. According to him, the well reasoned
judgment of conviction, does not require any interference by this
9
2025:HHC:28531 Court, in view of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, as the accused could not rebut the presumption, which is against him, as, the prosecution has proved its case, against the accused, beyond any shadow of doubt. 20. In order to decide the present appeal, in an effective manner, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 21. PW1, is the child victim, who has deposed his date of birth as 21.11.2001. He has also deposed that in the year 2017, he was studying in 10+1 Class and on 11.07.2017, at about 4.00 p.m., he had gone to graze the goats at Gharat Forest. After sometime, Nagender Singh @ Nagu also came there along with his goats. His one buck intermingled in the herd of child victim, upon which, accused had enquired from him and the child victim has answered in affirmative. Thereafter, the child victim lied on the platform. 22. This witness has also deposed that accused also came beside him and sat on the said platform and started doing wrong act. He tied his hands with parna and removed his pajama. Accused also removed his pants and penetrated his penis into his rectum. Thereafter, the accused threatened the
10
2025:HHC:28531 child victim that he would kill him, in case, he revealed the incident to anyone. Thereafter, accused had gone to his home along with his goats and the child victim also came back to his house and narrated the incident to his mother, who further informed his father on phone. His father reached home in the evening and had gone to the house of accused and told everything to the father of the accused, but, the father of the accused threatened the father of the child victim with dire consequences. 23. Thereafter, the child victim, along with his parents, had visited Police Station, Nurpur and produced the complaint Ex.PW1/A, upon which, the police registered the case and police took him to C.H. Nurpur, for conducting his medicolegal examination. After medicolegal examination, MLC was issued. He has duly identify his signature over the MLC. The Medical Officer has also taken into possession his Pajama, which he had allegedly worn at the time of incident. 24.
On 12.07.2017, Parna was also handed over to the Police, which the accused had used to tie his hands. Thereafter, the child victim was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nurpur, where his statement
11
2025:HHC:28531 under Section 164 Cr.PC, was recorded. He has duly identify his signatures over the statement under Section 164, Cr.PC, Ex.PW1/C. He has also identified the case property, which has been shown to him in the Court i.e. Parna Ex.P1, Pajama Ex.P2. 25. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that he is Rajput by caste, whereas, accused belongs to Scheduled Caste. Rajput caste was having their grazing rights over the Gharat Forest. This witness has also admitted that he had gone to attend school on 11.07.2017. He has also admitted that the distance of Police Station, Nurpur from his house is about 15 kilometers. The platform, where the crime was committed by accused is about half kilometer from his house. The complaint Ex.PW1/A was scribed by the police official. He has admitted that during the whole proceedings before the police, as well as, before the Court, he was accompanied by his father. However, he has denied that the statement Ex.PW1/C, is result of tutoring. This witness has also admitted that he had sustained injuries due to penetration in his rectum by the accused. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him by the learned counsel for the accused, including the
12
2025:HHC:28531 very basis of the incident that accused had not sodomized with him. 26. PW2 Dr. Richa Mehrotra, Medical Officer, PHC Kakeera, has deposed that in the year 2016, she was posted as Medical Officer at C.H. Nurpur. On 12.07.2017 at 1:00 a.m. on application of the police Ex.
PW2/A, he has conducted medico legal examination of the child victim, who was brought to her for medicolegal examination, by the police with the alleged history of anal intercourse by some person, namely Nagu, on 11.07.2017 at around 6:30 pm. The child victim was oriented and responding to verbal commands. On examination, the following injuries were found on the person of the child victim:
1. on examination, no external injury was seen over body. No bruise, abrasion, or eccymosis over thighs, buttocks, chest, abdomen, supra pubic area. 2. On examination, no injury was seen around anal orifice, redness was seen around the anal orifice, though no blood stains marks were seen and the orifice was surrounded by hairs, which were preserved. No cuts marks or fissure were seen. 27. This witness has also deposed that swabs (two in numbers) were taken from anal canal (distal end) and anal orifice and were preserved and sealed. No cuts, bruise,
13
2025:HHC:28531 eccymosis, tears, fissures were seen on the area examined. Slight redness was seen. She has also deposed that the child victim showed no difficulty in walking and no pain was elicited at the time of examination. She has also deposed that the pajama worn by child victim was preserved for analysis of any discharge or foreign body. 28. Apart from the above, swabs were taken from anal orifice and distal end of anal canal, hair around the anal orifice and Pajama worn at the time of assault, were also taken into possession. She has also deposed that no other injury was noticed by her over the body of the child victim. No bleeding, no cuts, no fissures were seen around anal orifice and anal canal, only redness was present. Final opinion was deferred till the results of chemical analysis. She had issued MLC Ex.PW2/B, which bears her signatures.
She has further deposed that on 07.12.2017, on the basis of report from RFSL Dharamshala, blood and semen were not detected in the anal swatis, hair around the anal orifice and pajama of the child victim and has already stated in MLC, no injury marks were found around the anal orifice. 14
2025:HHC:28531
29. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that the police moved an application, Ex.PW2/A, before her for the examination of child victim, in which, the police had already mentioned the contents of alleged history. She has also admitted that the redness mentioned in MLC Ex.PW2/B could be caused by itching, improper personal hygiene and fungal infection. She has also admitted that if anal intercourse is done by accused upon the child victim, both would sustain injuries on their private parts and there has to be injury in the shape of cuts, fissures and bleeding. She has also admitted that there is no fissures, cuts and bleeding shown during the examination of the child victim. 30. PW3 Susheel Kumar, has deposed that he was called by the police at village Bardi, however, according to him, the police had not taken into possession parna in his presence. 31. This witness has been declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Public Prosecutor has been permitted to crossexamine him. According to the cross examination of this witness, police took him to the spot at Syal Ghat Jungle and the police had put the parna in a cloth parcel which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Rest,
15
2025:HHC:28531 he has denied all the suggestions, which had been put to him by the learned Public Prosecutor. 32. In the crossexamination by the learned defence counsel, this witness has admitted that the police had shown him the parna and told that the said parna was used by the accused to tie the child victim. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned defence counsel. 33.
PW4 Jeevan Lal deposed that he was associated in the investigation by the police. In his presence, the police had taken into possession a parna at Tiyala of a place Gharat jungle, which was produced by the child victim. The said parna was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B, however, he has denied the sealing process. 34. This witness has also been declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. However, in his crossexamination, this witness has identified the Parna Ex.PA. 35. PW5 Smt. Kamlesh Kumari is mother of the child victim. According to her, on 11.07.2017, her son, the child victim, at about 7:00 p.m. when, returned back to home, after grazing goats, disclosed to this witness that accused Nagender Nagu tied his hands with parna and committed unnatural sex
16
2025:HHC:28531 (anal sex) with him. Consequently, this witness informed her husband through telephone. When her husband came back, he had gone to the house of the accused to inquire, in this regard, then, the accused has abused her husband and also threatened with dire consequences. 36. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that in Gharat Jungle, every inhabitant of the village and nearby villages could graze their cattle, like her son. She has admitted that they are Rajput by caste, whereas, the accused belongs to scheduled caste. The dispute, with regard to grazing rights has also been denied by her. Learned counsel appearing for the accused successfully confronted this witness, with regard to improvements made by this witness about alleged abuses by the accused to her husband, when he had gone to the house of the accused to inquire the matter. This witness has also specifically deposed about the date of birth of her children, including the child victim. 37. PW6 Duni Chand, is father of the child victim, who has deposed that on 11.07.2017, he had gone to Chakki Khadd for bringing sand. At about 7.00 p.m., his wife (PW5) telephonically requested him to come back to home.
PW5
17
2025:HHC:28531 disclosed to him that accused had tied the hands of the child victim and committed anal sex with the child victim, when the child victim had gone to Gharat forest to graze goats. He has also deposed that thereafter, he had gone to the house of the accused to talk with the father of the accused, however, accused with his father and brother has started the use of force with him and also pelted stones on him. This witness had narrow escaped from being hit by stones on his head. Thereafter, he had talked with Susheel Kumar, who is husband of the Ward Member, who has advised him to make the report to the police. Thereafter, he, along with his wife, had gone to Police Station Nurpur and lodged the FIR by moving complaint Ex.PW1/A, which was signed by the child victim. 38. In the crossexamination, this witness, alike his wife has also denied that in the Gharat forest only Rajputs had grazing rights over the said forest. He has also denied that they are having strained relations with the caste of the accused. The distance of Police Station Nurpur is about 12 kilometer from his home. He has also admitted that he and his wife were having cell phones, at the relevant time. This witness has further stated that the child victim has not sustained any injury in the
18
2025:HHC:28531 alleged occurrence. The child victim was medicolegally examined. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him by the learned defence counsel. 39. PW7 Kuldeep Chand, has produced the date of birth certificate of child victim, which is Ex.PW7/A. As per the record, the date of birth of the child victim is 21.11.2001. 40. PW8, Rajinder Parshad Soga, photographer has clicked the photographs, which are Ex.PW8/A1 to Ex.PW8/A
6. 41. PW9 HHG Jarnail Singh, took the case property to RFSL Dharamshala. 42.
PW10 Inspector Sandeep Sharma, registered the FIR and after completion of investigation, prepared the challan and submitted the same in the competent Court of law. 43. PW11 SI Shiv Lal is the I.O. of the case and he has deposed about the manner, in which he has conducted the investigation. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that the father of the child victim was associated during the entire investigation. He has feigned his ignorance about the fact that no evidence regarding sodomy was found during medical examination. 19
2025:HHC:28531
44. PW12 HC Ravinder Singh was posted as MHC in Police Station Nurpur. After receiving complaint Ex.PW1/A, FIR was registered. Thereafter, the case property, which was deposited with him, he has sent the same to RFSL Dharamshala. 45. PW13 SI Nand Lal, has also conducted the partial investigation in this case. 46. PW14, Dr. Ajay Sehgal, Assistant Director, Biology and Serology Division, RFSL NR Dharamshala, has proved the report Ex.PW14/A. This witness has admitted that no semen was detected on anal swabs, hair around anal orifice or pajama of the victim, however, he has stated that he cannot say that the offence was not committed with the victim. 47. PW15 Dr. Mukesh Bhardwaj, proved the MLC Ex.PW15/A, which was conducted by Dr. Jitender Mahajan, on
12.07.2017. 48. The accused, in this case, has examined DW1 Pardeep Kumar, who has deposed that he is Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat Loharpura Ward No.3. According to him, the persons belonging to Rajput caste are having grazing rights in the said forest and the Rajput society has passed the resolution
20
2025:HHC:28531 that the people of other castes cannot graze their cattle. Copy of resolution is lying with Rajput society. He has also deposed that the accused is from his Gram Panchayat and he belongs to scheduled caste. 49.
In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that he is not the member of the Rajput Society, nor having the copy of the byelaws of the society. He has also admitted that no fencing of the forest was made. He has further admitted that the stray and pet animals used to graze in the Gharat forest. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him by the learned special public prosecutor. 50. In this case, criminal machinery was put into motion by the child victim by making the complaint, Ex.PW1/A. In the said complaint, he has categorically stated that accused sodomized him, after tying both his hands. The said version, is not only contained in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, but also, in his statement, recorded, under Section 164 Cr.PC, in which, he has used the word, rape like act. 51. When the child victim appeared in the witnessbox, as PW1, he has categorically deposed about the said act of the accused, by saying that the accused had penetrated his penis
21
2025:HHC:28531 into his rectum. Nothing could be elicited by the learned defence counsel from the lengthy crossexamination of this witness, from which, inference can be drawn that the deposition made by the child victim is suffering from any infirmity. The statement was recorded on 3.8.2019. Meaning thereby, the child victim was about 18 years of age (17 years 9 months) and he, at that time, was studying in B.A. First year. As such, the child victim, being a young boy, might be understanding the consequences of making such a deposition, in the Court, and he cannot be expected to depose falsely against the accused, regarding such allegations, which would attract humiliation in the society. 52. Considering his consistent stand, right from making the complaint Ex.PW1/A, to make the deposition in the Court, after a gap of one year, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the evidence of the complainant is confidence inspiring. 53.
Moreover, it is highly improbable that merely on the basis of the alleged dispute regarding grazing rights, between two castes, would give an occasion to the child victim to lodge false FIR, had the alleged offence been not committed the accused. 22
2025:HHC:28531
54. Even otherwise, the tone and tenor of the cross examination demonstrate that the incident has not been disputed by the accused, as, it has been suggested that “it is correct that I had sustained injuries due to penetration in my rectum by accused”. By way of this suggestion, a credence has been led to the version of the child victim. Mere admission on the part of the child victim that the complaint, Ex.PW1/A was scribed by the Police officials, in no way, diminishes the evidentiary value of the statement of the child victim, in the Court, as, he has not only deposed about the incident in clear terms, but, also withstood the lengthy crossexamination. 55. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the accused qua the fact that the medical evidence does not support the case of the child victim, are concerned, the same are liable to be rejected, as, PW2, has categorically deposed that although, no injury was seen around anal orifice, but, redness was seen around the anal orifice, though, no blood stain marks were seen and orifice was surrounded by hairs. She has also deposed that no cut marks or fissure were seen, but, the statement of the witness is to be considered, as a whole, as, in the latter part of her statement,
23
2025:HHC:28531 she has deposed that redness was seen around anal orifice, as observed in MLC, can be caused by slight penetration of penis in anus. 56. This deposition of the expert has not even been suggested to be incorrect.
Whatsoever, the suggestions, which were put, are with regard to the complete penetration, as, she has deposed that in case, anal intercourse is done by accused upon victim, both would sustain injuries on their private parts, whereas, in the examinationinchief, she has stated that redness can be caused by slight penetration of penis in anus. 57. The accused, in the present case, has been charge sheeted, under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Penetrative sexual assault, has been defined in Section 3 of the POCSO Act, which is reproduced, as under:
3. Penetrative sexual assault.—A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if— (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus
24
2025:HHC:28531 or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person. (self emphasis supplied)
58. If the statement of PW2, qua the fact that the redness is seen around the anal orifice, as observed, can be caused by slight penetration of penis in anus, is seen in the light of the definition of penetrative sexual assault, the offence committed by the accused stood proved, from the deposition of the child victim, who has categorically stated that the accused penetrated his penis into his rectum. 59.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused has argued that expert PW2, has stated that the redness can be caused, as mentioned in Ex.PW2/E, by itching, improper personal hygiene and fungal infection, but, no suggestion has been put to PW1 that the redness, which was noticed by the Medical Officer in the MLC, was due to itching, improper personal hygiene and fungal infection. In the absence of suggestion to the accused, merely putting the suggestion to the expert PW2, the doctor, who has conducted medicolegal examination of the child victim, is inconsequential. 25
2025:HHC:28531
60. So far as the alleged animosity on account of grazing rights over the Gharat Forest is concerned, futile attempt has been made by DW1, who has deposed that the Rajput society has passed the resolution that people of the other castes cannot graze their cattle in the said forest. However, neither any documentary proof has been placed on record, nor, any suggestion was put to the child victim, his mother and his father regarding the alleged resolution of the Rajput society. Absence of the documentary proof or suggestion, in no way, helps the case of the accused. 61. The alleged documents i.e., resolution, could have been summoned to prove or probabilize the defence that the Rajput society has passed the resolution of preventing the other castes to use the said forest to graze their pet animals. 62. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, as, the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. 63. So far as the arguments of the learned defence counsel, qua the fact that the mother and father of the child victim were not present on the spot, are concerned, no benefit
26
2025:HHC:28531 can be derived from the said fact, as, it is the case of the child victim that the accused had committed anal sex with him, in the forest, and thereafter, when, he came back to home, he had narrated the entire incident to his mother, who, in turn, has informed his father and requested him to come home. In the normal course of events, he had gone to the house of the accused and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. 64.
It is no longer res integra that the quality of the evidence matters and not the quantity. When, the child victim has deposed, in unequivocal terms, with regard to the incident, which had taken place with him and withstood the lengthy crossexamination, then, there is no occasion for this Court to disagree with the findings, so recorded, by the learned trial Court. 65. Merely, the persons, who were associated by the Police to prove the recovery of Parna, when appeared in the witnessbox, turned hostile, does not mean that the testimony of the child victim is liable to be ignored. The testimony of the child victim is confidence inspiring and nothing adverse could be elicited from him in his crossexamination. 27
2025:HHC:28531
66. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the child victim and his parents are from tradition bound conservative family and in normal course of events, the father of the child victim had gone to the house of the accused, where, the accused and his father scolded him. Thereafter, the FIR has been lodged. 67. Even otherwise, the person from tradition bound conservative family, thinks twice, before lodging FIRs, in such type of matters, which would bring hatred and disrespect to the child victim, as well as, his family, in the society. 68. No other point urged or argued, before this Court. 69. In view of the above discussion, no ground for interference with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court is made out and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh)
Judge August 19, 2025 (ps)