CRA-D-307-DB-2010 In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana Ramesh @ Meshi State of Haryana CORAM: Present: GURVINDER 1. Appellant – by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 506 IPC and sentenced as Under Section 376 IPC Under Section 452 IPC Under Section 506 IPC 2. The matter arises out of FIR No. Station Taraori, under Sections (O&M) ( 1 ) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CR Date of Decision Ramesh @ Meshi Versus State of Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. – Ramesh @ Meshi assails judgment dated 03.11.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which of having committed offence punishable under Sections 506 IPC and sentenced as under: Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month matter arises out of FIR No.201 dated 02.10.2006 registered at Police Station Taraori, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRA-D-307-DB-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 15.02.2025 … Appellant ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Navdeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Randeep S. Dhull, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. assails judgment dated 03.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which he has been found of having committed offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 & To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of and in default of payment of fine to undergo further To undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay and in default of payment of fine to undergo To undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a and in default of payment of fine to undergo 201 dated 02.10.2006 registered at Police 376, 452, 506 IPC, at the instance of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 Nirmala, mother of the prosecutrix, wherein she alleged that she and her husband work as work at about 8.00 A Taraori leaving their three children at home. At about 3.00 PM, when she returned home, she heard cries of her knocked at the door and from the door she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was lying on her daughter (prosecutrix) committing sexual intercourse. raised alarm upon which Ramesh @ Meshi, who is their neighbourer ran away after pushing her. The disclosed to her further stated therein that while leaving, Ramesh @ Meshi issued threats that in case the incident was disclosed to anybody, then he will kill he The complainant noticed that ‘ stained with blood. At about 5.00 PM, when complainant’s husband returned home, he was appri complainant, the prosecutrix and her husband Station, and while on the way Bridge, who recorded the statement of the complainant. 3. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the during the course of which the police site plan Ex.P taken into possession. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from the Civil Hospital. FSL. The accused was arrested on 02.10.2006 itself. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. (O&M) ( 2 ) Nirmala, mother of the prosecutrix, wherein she alleged that she and her husband work as labourers and that on 02.10.2006, her husband left for work at about 8.00 AM and she also proceeded for work to ori leaving their three children at home. At about 3.00 PM, when she returned home, she heard cries of her eldest daughter (pro knocked at the door and from the door she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was lying on her daughter (prosecutrix) committing sexual intercourse. raised alarm upon which Ramesh @ Meshi, who is their neighbourer ran away after pushing her. The complainant’s daughter (prosecutrix) disclosed to her that she had been raped by the accused. The complainant further stated therein that while leaving, Ramesh @ Meshi issued threats that in case the incident was disclosed to anybody, then he will kill he The complainant noticed that ‘Salwar’ (lower worn by the ladies) was stained with blood. At about 5.00 PM, when complainant’s husband returned home, he was apprised about the incident and thereafter, the complainant, the prosecutrix and her husband and while on the way met SI/SHO Braham Singh at Sonkra Bridge, who recorded the statement of the complainant. Pursuant to lodging of FIR, the matter was investigated by the police during the course of which the police visited the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.P-18. Broken piece of bangle found lying at the spot was also taken into possession. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from the Civil Hospital. The clothes of the prosecutrix were sealed and sen FSL. The accused was arrested on 02.10.2006 itself. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Nirmala, mother of the prosecutrix, wherein she alleged that she and her 02.10.2006, her husband left for and she also proceeded for work to Anaj Mandi, ori leaving their three children at home. At about 3.00 PM, when she eldest daughter (prosecutrix). She knocked at the door and from the door she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was lying on her daughter (prosecutrix) committing sexual intercourse. She raised alarm upon which Ramesh @ Meshi, who is their neighbourer ran complainant’s daughter (prosecutrix) that she had been raped by the accused. The complainant further stated therein that while leaving, Ramesh @ Meshi issued threats that in case the incident was disclosed to anybody, then he will kill her. (lower worn by the ladies) was stained with blood. At about 5.00 PM, when complainant’s husband ed about the incident and thereafter, the complainant, the prosecutrix and her husband proceeded towards Police met SI/SHO Braham Singh at Sonkra Bridge, who recorded the statement of the complainant. matter was investigated by the police visited the spot and prepared rough 18. Broken piece of bangle found lying at the spot was also taken into possession. The prosecutrix was got medically examined from The clothes of the prosecutrix were sealed and sent to FSL. The accused was arrested on 02.10.2006 itself. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. r. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 4. Upon conclusion of investigation, accused/appellant in the Court of case to the Court of Sessions framed charges against the accused for offence Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC not guilty and 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as PWs. The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder: PW-1 Dr. Kishan Kant, Medical Officer, HC Taraori, stated that on 02.10.2006, he had medically examined Ramesh @ Meshi, who had been brought to the hospital by SI/SHO that upon medical examination, he opined that Ramesh @ Meshi was capable of performing sexual intercourse. PW-2 Dr. Anju stated that prosecutrix and had found that hymen had been torn abraded every possibility that it was a case of sexual assault. the MLR as Ex.P4. PW-3 EHC general duty at Police Station Taraori and had been entrusted with 3 envelopes by ASI Ishwar Singh same to the Illaqa Magistrate, SSP, Karnal and to DSP acco PW-4 ASI Ishwar Singh Police Station Taraori and that upon receipt of written (Ex.P5) sent by SI/SHO Braham Singh, he had recorded formal FIR Ex.P6 and had (O&M) ( 3 ) conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against accused/appellant in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional framed charges against the accused for offence 376, 452, 506 IPC on 20.03.2007 not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder: Dr. Kishan Kant, Medical Officer, HC Taraori, stated that on 02.10.2006, he had medically examined Ramesh @ Meshi, who had been brought to the hospital by SI/SHO that upon medical examination, he opined that Ramesh @ Meshi was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Dr. Anju stated that on 02.10.2006, she had examined the prosecutrix and had found that hymen had been torn abraded and bleeding was present. every possibility that it was a case of sexual assault. the MLR as Ex.P4. EHC Satbir Singh stated that on 02.10.2006, he was posted on general duty at Police Station Taraori and had been entrusted with 3 envelopes by ASI Ishwar Singh same to the Illaqa Magistrate, SSP, Karnal and to DSP accordingly delivered. ASI Ishwar Singh stated that on 06.10.2006 Police Station Taraori and that upon receipt of written (Ex.P5) sent by SI/SHO Braham Singh, he had recorded formal FIR Ex.P6 and had thereafter handed over challan was presented against the Magistrate, who committed the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal framed charges against the accused for offences punishable under 20.03.2007 to which the accused pleaded The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder:- Dr. Kishan Kant, Medical Officer, HC Taraori, stated that on 02.10.2006, he had medically examined Ramesh @ Meshi, who had been brought to the hospital by SI/SHO Braham Singh and that upon medical examination, he opined that Ramesh @ Meshi was capable of performing sexual intercourse. 02.10.2006, she had examined the prosecutrix and had found that hymen had been torn and margins and bleeding was present. She opined that there was every possibility that it was a case of sexual assault. She proved 02.10.2006, he was posted on general duty at Police Station Taraori and had been entrusted with with a direction to deliver the same to the Illaqa Magistrate, SSP, Karnal and to DSP, which he 06.10.2006, he was posted as ASI Police Station Taraori and that upon receipt of written ruqa (Ex.P5) sent by SI/SHO Braham Singh, he had recorded formal handed over 3 envelopes containing VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 special report to EHC Satbir Singh for the purpose of delivering the same to the Illaqa Magistrate and to senior police officers. PW-5 Vir Shakti Singh posted in Police Lines, Karnal Jasbir Singh, he had visited the place of occurrence and had prepared site plan Ex.P7. PW-6 ASI Jasbir Singh stated that on at Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, he had taken t prosecutrix to the hospital for her medical examination and that after over a into possession. PW-7 HC Parveen Kumar stated that on at CHC Taraori, he was associated with investigation of the case and that after medical examination of the prosecutrix, the Doctor had handed over a sealed parcel alongwith envelope and a sample seal, which he delivered to SI PW-8 Nirmala (complainant) at whose instance FIR was lodged stated in tune with the version recorded in the FIR. She categorically stated that on about 3.00 PM, she heard cri inside the room, she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was raping her daughter her and while issuing threats of dire consequences in case she disclosed about the incident to PW-9 Prosecutrix fully supported the case of the prosecution stating in tune with the statement made by the complainant i.e. her mother to the effect that on the day of occurrence while her parents were away (O&M) ( 4 ) special report to EHC Satbir Singh for the purpose of delivering the same to the Illaqa Magistrate and to senior police officers. Vir Shakti Singh, Draftsman, stated that on posted in Police Lines, Karnal and that on the request of ASI Jasbir Singh, he had visited the place of occurrence and had prepared site plan Ex.P7. ASI Jasbir Singh stated that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, he had taken t prosecutrix to the hospital for her medical examination and that after the medical examination was conduct over a copy of MLR and other sealed parcels, which were taken into possession. HC Parveen Kumar stated that on 02.10.2006 while he was posted at CHC Taraori, he was associated with investigation of the case and that after medical examination of the prosecutrix, the Doctor had handed over a sealed parcel alongwith envelope and a sample seal, which he delivered to SI Braham Singh on the same day. Nirmala (complainant) at whose instance FIR was lodged stated in tune with the version recorded in the FIR. She categorically stated that on 02.10.2006, when she returned home from work at about 3.00 PM, she heard cries of her daughter and when she went inside the room, she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was raping her daughter and that thereafter the accused ran away after pushing her and while issuing threats of dire consequences in case she disclosed about the incident to anybody. Prosecutrix fully supported the case of the prosecution stating in tune with the statement made by the complainant i.e. her mother to the effect that on the day of occurrence while her parents were away for work, she had been raped by the accused special report to EHC Satbir Singh for the purpose of delivering the same to the Illaqa Magistrate and to senior police officers. stated that on 08.10.2006, he was and that on the request of ASI Jasbir Singh, he had visited the place of occurrence and had 02.10.2006, he was posted as ASI at Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, he had taken the prosecutrix to the hospital for her medical examination and that he medical examination was conducted, Dr. Anju handed copy of MLR and other sealed parcels, which were taken 02.10.2006 while he was posted at CHC Taraori, he was associated with investigation of the case and that after medical examination of the prosecutrix, the Doctor had handed over a sealed parcel alongwith envelope and a sample Braham Singh on the same day. Nirmala (complainant) at whose instance FIR was lodged stated in tune with the version recorded in the FIR. She categorically 02.10.2006, when she returned home from work at es of her daughter and when she went inside the room, she saw that Ramesh @ Meshi was raping her and that thereafter the accused ran away after pushing her and while issuing threats of dire consequences in case she anybody. Prosecutrix fully supported the case of the prosecution while stating in tune with the statement made by the complainant i.e. her mother to the effect that on the day of occurrence while her , she had been raped by the accused VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 and that aside her mother and that he case she disclosed about the incident to any PW-10 Dr. Lajja Ra to determine her age, opined that she was aged about 15 years. He proved his report as Ex.P PW-11 HC Sher Singh, who Ex.P was posted as MHC and that on the said day, SI/SHO Braham Singh had deposited parcel containing broken bangle, parcel containing clothes of prosecutri envelope addressed to Director, FSL, Madhuban, parcel containing underwear of accused, another envelope addressed to the Director, FSL, Madhuban and two sample seals. He further deposed that on Constable Ashok Kumar for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of Director, FSL, Madhuban, which was accordingly deposited. He further deposed that as long as case property remained in his possession, the same were not tamper PW-12 Constable Ashok Kumar stated that on on General Duty in Police Station Taraori and on the said day, MHC Sher Singh had handed over depositing the same the same day and that as long as possession, the same were not tampered with. PW-13 Inspector as SHO, Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, Nirmala Devi culvert (bridge) basis of which FIR was lodged. He stated in detail with regard to (O&M) ( 5 ) and that when her mother returned, aside her mother and that he (accused) case she disclosed about the incident to any Dr. Lajja Ram, who had radiologically examined the prosecutrix to determine her age, opined that she was aged about 15 years. He proved his report as Ex.P-11. HC Sher Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.P-17 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on was posted as MHC and that on the said day, SI/SHO Braham Singh had deposited parcel containing broken bangle, parcel containing clothes of prosecutrix, parcel of vial of swab, an envelope addressed to Director, FSL, Madhuban, parcel containing underwear of accused, another envelope addressed to the Director, FSL, Madhuban and two sample seals. He further deposed that on 09.10.2006, the case property w Constable Ashok Kumar for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of Director, FSL, Madhuban, which was accordingly deposited. He further deposed that as long as case property remained in his possession, the same were not tamper Constable Ashok Kumar stated that on on General Duty in Police Station Taraori and on the said day, MHC Sher Singh had handed over depositing the same with FSL, Madhuban the same day and that as long as possession, the same were not tampered with. Inspector Braham Singh stated that on as SHO, Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, Nirmala Devi alongwith her husband and daughter had met him at Sonkra culvert (bridge) and had got her statement (Ex.P5) recorded on the basis of which FIR was lodged. He stated in detail with regard to returned, the accused ran away pushing (accused) also threatened her that in case she disclosed about the incident to anyone, he would kill her. m, who had radiologically examined the prosecutrix to determine her age, opined that she was aged about 15 years. s a formal witness, tendered his affidavit 17 in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as MHC and that on the said day, SI/SHO Braham Singh had deposited parcel containing broken bangle, parcel x, parcel of vial of swab, an envelope addressed to Director, FSL, Madhuban, parcel containing underwear of accused, another envelope addressed to the Director, FSL, Madhuban and two sample seals. He further 09.10.2006, the case property was handed over to Constable Ashok Kumar for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of Director, FSL, Madhuban, which was accordingly deposited. He further deposed that as long as case property remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. Constable Ashok Kumar stated that on 09.10.2006, he was posted on General Duty in Police Station Taraori and on the said day, MHC Sher Singh had handed over to him the parcels for with FSL, Madhuban, which he deposited on the same day and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. stated that on 02.10.2006, he was posted as SHO, Police Station Taraori and that on the said day, Nirmala alongwith her husband and daughter had met him at Sonkra and had got her statement (Ex.P5) recorded on the basis of which FIR was lodged. He stated in detail with regard to to determine her age, opined that she was aged about 15 years. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 the investigation conducted in the matter and proved various docu stated that upon conclusion of investigation, he had prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused w recorded in terms of Section 313 prosecution and pleaded false implication. examined DW real sister and that family and neighbourer any untoward incident in the house of Nirmala. She further stated that on the day of occurrence, she was not called by any police official and it was after about 2 Nirmala where her signatures were taken on blank papers. She further stated that Nirmala was having a dispute with Ramesh regarding some amount, which was borrowed by her. 7. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, that the prosecution had successfu accused under Sections 376, 452 & 506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as mentioned above. judgment dated assailing the findings of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel judgment, submitted that he has falsely been implicated (O&M) ( 6 ) the investigation conducted in the matter and proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of the same. He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, he had prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused w recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., prosecution and pleaded false implication. DW-1 Jeeto, who stated that Nirmala Devi (complainant) real sister and that on 02.10.2006, she alongwith and neighbourer was present in front of her house and had not seen any untoward incident in the house of Nirmala. She further stated that on the day of occurrence, she was not called by any police official and it was after about 2-3 days, she was taken to the Police Station by where her signatures were taken on blank papers. She further stated that Nirmala was having a dispute with Ramesh regarding some amount, which was borrowed by her. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, that the prosecution had successfully proved charges accused under Sections 376, 452 & 506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as mentioned above. judgment dated 03.11.2008, the accused ha assailing the findings of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that he has falsely been implicated the investigation conducted in the matter and proved various ments/memos prepared during the course of the same. He stated that upon conclusion of investigation, he had prepared Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was wherein he denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. In his defence, accused , who stated that Nirmala Devi (complainant) is her longwith other members of her was present in front of her house and had not seen any untoward incident in the house of Nirmala. She further stated that on the day of occurrence, she was not called by any police official and it was the Police Station by her sister where her signatures were taken on blank papers. She further stated that Nirmala was having a dispute with Ramesh regarding some The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, held y proved charges framed against the accused under Sections 376, 452 & 506 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the said , the accused has preferred the instant appeal for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 case and that the complainant has deposed falsely against the appellant and her presence at the spot is highly doubtful. even the testimony of the prosecutrix i.e. PW discrepancies which submitted that there are various inconsistencies as regards the place and time of occurrence, which go to the root of the case and under these circumstances, conviction of the appellant could not sustain an liable to be set aside. 9. Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that and the prosecutrix have both stated consistently on all the material aspects of the case and that the medical evidence also fully corroborates the ocular version and that there is no infirmity by the trial Court 10. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 11. The case of the prosecution regarding the charges of rape mainly rests on the testimonies of prosecutrix and of her mother apart from the medical evidence. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was aged about 11 prosecutrix was conduc Ram, the age of the prosecutrix was opined about 15 years. The prosecutrix while in the witness (O&M) ( 7 ) case and that the complainant has deposed falsely against the appellant and her presence at the spot is highly doubtful. even the testimony of the prosecutrix i.e. PW discrepancies which show that she had also deposed falsely. It has been submitted that there are various inconsistencies as regards the place and time of occurrence, which go to the root of the case and under these circumstances, conviction of the appellant could not sustain an liable to be set aside. Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that and the prosecutrix have both stated consistently on all the material aspects of the case and that the medical evidence also fully corroborates the ocular version and that there is no infirmity by the trial Court, which may warrant any interference. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the The case of the prosecution regarding the charges of rape mainly rests on the testimonies of prosecutrix and of her mother apart from the medical evidence. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was aged about 11-12 years. Ossification test for determining the age prosecutrix was conducted and as per the opinion of PW , the age of the prosecutrix was opined about 15 years. The prosecutrix while in the witness-box as PW case and that the complainant has deposed falsely against the appellant and her presence at the spot is highly doubtful. It has been submitted that even the testimony of the prosecutrix i.e. PW-9 suffers from various that she had also deposed falsely. It has been submitted that there are various inconsistencies as regards the place and time of occurrence, which go to the root of the case and under these circumstances, conviction of the appellant could not sustain and was Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that the complainant and the prosecutrix have both stated consistently on all the material aspects of the case and that the medical evidence also fully corroborates the ocular version and that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded any interference. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the The case of the prosecution regarding the charges of rape by the appellant mainly rests on the testimonies of prosecutrix and of her mother apart from the medical evidence. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was 12 years. Ossification test for determining the age of the ted and as per the opinion of PW-10 Dr. Lajja , the age of the prosecutrix was opined about 15 years. The box as PW-9 stated in clear and VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 unambiguous terms that on the day of occurrence i.e. on the day of Dus to her house at about 3.00 PM and asked for water and when she did not give water, he forcibly lifted her and took her inside a room and raped her. She stated that he took off her clothes as well she was crying and narrated the incident to her. She further stated that immediately when her mother had entered the room by opening the door, the accused pushed her aside and ran threatened that in case she disclosed about the incident to any kill her. She stated that when her father returned home, she alongwith parents went towards Police Station and met the police at Sonkara (bridge) where 12. PW-8 Nirmala (complainant) has also stated consistently as regards the case of prosecution. She stated that at about 3.00 PM, home, she heard cries of her daughter and when she went inside the room, she saw that Ramesh was lying over her daughter and committing rape. She stated that while her daughter was completely naked, the accused had taken off his pant, bu initially peeped through the door and when she went inside, the accused pushed her and ran away from the spot while issuing threats of dire consequences to her. She stated that when her she alongwith her husband and daughter went to lodge report to the police and thereafter her daughter was got medically examined at the hospital. (O&M) ( 8 ) unambiguous terms that on the day of occurrence i.e. on Dussehra, while her parents were away, accused Ramesh came to her house at about 3.00 PM and asked for water and when she did not water, he forcibly lifted her and took her inside a room and raped her. She stated that he took off her clothes as well she was crying and had raised alarm and narrated the incident to her. She further stated that immediately when her mother had entered the room by opening the door, the accused pushed her aside and ran away from the spot. She further stated that the accused threatened that in case she disclosed about the incident to any She stated that when her father returned home, she alongwith parents went towards Police Station and met the police at Sonkara where their statements were recorded. 8 Nirmala (complainant) has also stated consistently as regards the case of prosecution. She stated that at about 3.00 PM, home, she heard cries of her daughter and when she went inside the room, she saw that Ramesh was lying over her daughter and committing rape. She stated that while her daughter was completely naked, the accused had taken off his pant, but was wearing his shirt. initially peeped through the door and when she went inside, the accused her and ran away from the spot while issuing threats of dire consequences to her. She stated that when her she alongwith her husband and daughter went to lodge report to the police and thereafter her daughter was got medically examined at the hospital. unambiguous terms that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 02.10.2006 on , while her parents were away, accused Ramesh came to her house at about 3.00 PM and asked for water and when she did not water, he forcibly lifted her and took her inside a room and raped her. She stated that he took off her clothes as well as his own clothes and that raised alarm and when her mother came, she narrated the incident to her. She further stated that immediately when her mother had entered the room by opening the door, the accused pushed her away from the spot. She further stated that the accused threatened that in case she disclosed about the incident to anyone, he will She stated that when her father returned home, she alongwith her parents went towards Police Station and met the police at Sonkara pulia their statements were recorded. 8 Nirmala (complainant) has also stated consistently as regards the case of prosecution. She stated that at about 3.00 PM, when she returned home, she heard cries of her daughter and when she went inside the room, she saw that Ramesh was lying over her daughter and committing rape. She stated that while her daughter was completely naked, the accused had t was wearing his shirt. She stated that she had initially peeped through the door and when she went inside, the accused her and ran away from the spot while issuing threats of dire consequences to her. She stated that when her husband returned home, she alongwith her husband and daughter went to lodge report to the police and thereafter her daughter was got medically examined at the hospital. water, he forcibly lifted her and took her inside a room and raped her. she saw that Ramesh was lying over her daughter and committing rape. and thereafter her daughter was got medically examined at the hospital. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 Both the aforesaid PWs were cross remained firm be elicited so as to doubt their credibility in any manner. 13. During the course of arguments inconsistenc prosecutrix, wherein she stated that the accused after entering the house had asked for water and that she had accordingly brought water from the tap and given to the accused, whereas in prosecutrix counsel while referring to the site plan pointed out that although the complainant claim of fact no door is fixed in the room where the occurrence has also been submitted that as per site plan, there is no the room, but PW 14. Upon perusal of the site the room adj shows that door. When the complainant refers to peep through the door, obviously it was the main door she would have been referring to. In any case, such like inconsistencies or discrepancies prosecution story of the complainant are consistent on all the material aspects pertaining to the allegation of rape (O&M) ( 9 ) Both the aforesaid PWs were cross-examined at length, but both of them remained firm on their statements on material aspects be elicited so as to doubt their credibility in any manner. uring the course of arguments, the learned counsel inconsistencies while referring to the cross prosecutrix, wherein she stated that the accused after entering the house had asked for water and that she had accordingly brought water from the tap and given to the accused, whereas in prosecutrix had stated that she refused to give water. counsel while referring to the site plan pointed out that although the complainant claims she had peeped inside of fact no door is fixed in the room where the occurrence has also been submitted that as per site plan, there is no the room, but PW-9 has referred to a verandah Upon perusal of the site plan, we find that a the room adjacent to the room where occurrence took place. The site plan shows that the house has a main door, whereas the rooms do not have a door. When the complainant refers to peep through the door, obviously it was the main door she would have been referring to. In any case, such like inconsistencies or discrepancies do not erode t prosecution story particularly when the testimonies of the prosecutrix and of the complainant are consistent on all the material aspects pertaining to the allegation of rape. examined at length, but both of them on material aspects and nothing could be elicited so as to doubt their credibility in any manner. , the learned counsel referred to some while referring to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, wherein she stated that the accused after entering the house had asked for water and that she had accordingly brought water from the tap and given to the accused, whereas in her examination-in-chief, the refused to give water. Further, learned counsel while referring to the site plan pointed out that although the inside from the door, but as a matter of fact no door is fixed in the room where the occurrence took place. It has also been submitted that as per site plan, there is no verandah outside verandah. plan, we find that a verandah does exist outside acent to the room where occurrence took place. The site plan the house has a main door, whereas the rooms do not have a door. When the complainant refers to peep through the door, obviously it was the main door she would have been referring to. In any case, such do not erode the credibility of the particularly when the testimonies of the prosecutrix and of the complainant are consistent on all the material aspects pertaining to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 15. Apart from the aforesaid ocular version, the case of th fully supported and fortified from the medical evidence in the shape of statement of PW on the day of occurrence itself. The relevant extract from her statement is reproduced here on the upper lip. breast; Bilaternal breast on both sides well developed. Axilliary developed. No mark of injury present anywhere on breast. Per Abdomen Examination: Soft no fresh mark of injury present anywhere. Menstral history: No menarchae then local examination genitalia. Pubic hairs developed. Not matted. No fresh ma thighs and external genitial ogans. Labia are opened by gentle traction only. hymen margins abraded red bleed on touch examination: Vagin with slight difficulty as the patient feeling pain. Uterus is Nulliparous size anteverted slight vaginal examination…………. sexual assault. 16. The aforesaid witness was briefly cross accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited so as to doubt either the veracity or her opinion. As such, we find that the medic fully in consonance with the case of the prosecution to the effect that the prosecutrix had been subjected to forcible intercourse. (O&M) ( 10 ) Apart from the aforesaid ocular version, the case of th fully supported and fortified from the medical evidence in the shape of statement of PW-2 Dr. Anju, who had medically examined the prosecutrix on the day of occurrence itself. The relevant extract from her statement is reproduced hereinunder: “On examination injury No.1 slight swelling with redness present on the upper lip. Secondary sexual characters well developed. Examination of breast; Bilaternal breast on both sides well developed. Axilliary developed. No mark of injury present anywhere on breast. Per Abdomen Examination: Soft no fresh mark of injury present anywhere. Menstral history: No menarchae then local examination genitalia. Pubic hairs developed. Not matted. No fresh ma thighs and external genitial ogans. Labia are opened by gentle traction only. Hymen is torn posterialy and in the middle of the hymen. hymen margins abraded red bleed on touch examination: Vaginal orifice admits one finger easily and the fingers with slight difficulty as the patient feeling pain. Uterus is Nulliparous size anteverted slight bleeding present vaginal examination…………. In my opinion: there is the every p sexual assault.” The aforesaid witness was briefly cross accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited so as to doubt either the veracity or her opinion. As such, we find that the medic fully in consonance with the case of the prosecution to the effect that the prosecutrix had been subjected to forcible intercourse. Apart from the aforesaid ocular version, the case of the prosecution stands fully supported and fortified from the medical evidence in the shape of , who had medically examined the prosecutrix on the day of occurrence itself. The relevant extract from her statement is “On examination injury No.1 slight swelling with redness present Secondary sexual characters well developed. Examination of breast; Bilaternal breast on both sides well developed. Axilliary hairs developed. No mark of injury present anywhere on breast. Per Abdomen Examination: Soft no fresh mark of injury present Menstral history: No menarchae then local examination genitalia. Pubic hairs developed. Not matted. No fresh mark of injuries present on thighs and external genitial ogans. Labia are opened by gentle traction and in the middle of the hymen. Torn hymen margins abraded red bleed on touch and congested. Per vaginal al orifice admits one finger easily and the fingers with slight difficulty as the patient feeling pain. Uterus is Nulliparous bleeding present on fingers of gloves during In my opinion: there is the every possibility that it was the case of The aforesaid witness was briefly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited so as to doubt either the veracity or her opinion. As such, we find that the medical evidence is fully in consonance with the case of the prosecution to the effect that the prosecutrix had been subjected to forcible intercourse. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-307-DB-2010 17. The witness examined by the accused i.e. his case in any manner. PW-8 Nirmala ( prosecutrix was having an aff the offence, but the hollow suggestion without there being any evidence to substantiate th same. 18. In view of the aforestated discussion, we do not find any ground to take a view different from the one the accused. The pros against the accused by leading ocular and medical evidence. The sentence as imposed by the trial Court is also commensurate with the heinous nature of offence coupled with the fact that the appellant was convict having been registered at Police Station Sadar Pipli, District Kurukshetra under Section 302 IPC the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. 19. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. 15.02.2025 Vimal (O&M) ( 11 ) he witness examined by the accused i.e. his case in any manner. Although some suggestion had been given to 8 Nirmala (complainant) during her cross prosecutrix was having an affair with someone else, who had committed the offence, but the said suggestion was denied and in any case is a ollow suggestion without there being any evidence to substantiate th In view of the aforestated discussion, we do not find any ground to take a different from the one taken by the trial Court as regards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has fully established the charges framed against the accused by leading ocular and medical evidence. The sentence as imposed by the trial Court is also commensurate with the heinous offence coupled with the fact that the appellant was convict having been convicted in respect of FIR No.162 dated 12.07.2000 registered at Police Station Sadar Pipli, District Kurukshetra under 302 IPC and was undergoing life sentence. the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: he witness examined by the accused i.e. DW-1 Jeeto does not advance Although some suggestion had been given to cross-examination that in fact the ir with someone else, who had committed aid suggestion was denied and in any case is a ollow suggestion without there being any evidence to substantiate the In view of the aforestated discussion, we do not find any ground to take a taken by the trial Court as regards the guilt of ecution has fully established the charges framed against the accused by leading ocular and medical evidence. The sentence as imposed by the trial Court is also commensurate with the heinous offence coupled with the fact that the appellant was a previous in respect of FIR No.162 dated 12.07.2000 registered at Police Station Sadar Pipli, District Kurukshetra under and was undergoing life sentence. Finding no merit in A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2025.02.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document