Dinesh Lal v. State of U.P (now State of Uttarakhand)

and perused the lower court record.

#3. Prosecution story in brief is that P.W. 2 Km. Pushpa (victim) was a blind girl aged twenty years. On 23.12.1995, she was at her home in village Bhunal Gaon when other members of family had gone out for their work. At about noon, on that day accused/appellant Dinesh Lal entered in her house. When the blind girl heard sound of rattling at the door, accused/appellant Dinesh Lal told her that it was he who had come. Thereafter, said accused closed the door from inside, and committed rape on the victim. Before leaving the room the accused asked her not to disclose about the incident. When complainant Jabru Lal (P.W.1) father of the girl came back to the house at 5:00 p.m., the girl broke down and narrated the horrifying incident. On next date (26.12.1995) P.W.1 Jabru Lal gave a written report (Ex. A1) to Patwari Syur Bangar who registered the crime no. 13 of 1996, on the basis of the First Information Report given by Jabru Lal (In 3 Uttarakhand hills certain revenue officials are given police powers in the interior areas for the purposes of investigation). P.W.6 Kunwar Singh Sajwan Patwari of the area investigated the crime, prepared check report (Ex. A3), made entry in the General Diary (copy Ex. A4) and investigated the crime. He took the girl to Primary Health Center where P.W. 5 Dr. Minu medically examined the girl Pushpa, and opined in her medical report (Ex. A2) that there was evidence of rape. After interrogating the witnesses, and on completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex. A7) against accused Dinesh Lal for his trial in respect of offence punishable under section 376 IPC. He also got the statement of the girl Pushpa recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., by the Magistrate.

#4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions 4 Judge, Tehri Garwahl, on 22.04.1996, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 376 IPC, against accused Dinesh Lal who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Jabru (informant), P.W. 2 Pushpa (victim),P.W.3 Suresh Lal (witness of the proceedings of Village Panchayat), P.W.4 Shiv Lal, Village Pradhan, P.W.5 Dr. Minu (who medically examined the girl), and P.W.6 Kunwar Singh Sajwan Patwari (Investigating Officer). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he alleged that the evidence adduced against him is false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 376 IPC, against accused/ appellant Dinesh Lal, and after hearing on sentence, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated

29.04.1997, passed by learned Sessions Judge, 5 Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1996, this appeal was filed by the convict before Allahabad High Court in the year 1997, where it was registered as defective appeal no. 70 of 1997, and later it was admitted as criminal appeal no. 2403 of 2000. This appeal is received by this Court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal

#5. Before further discussion this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the observations made by P.W.4 Dr. Minu after medical examination of Pushpa (P.W.2) on

29.12.1995. The observations relating to injuries on the private parts of the girl made by the medical officer in medical report (Ex. A2) are being reproduced below: “Bruises, laceration and swelling of vulva is present. Edges of laceration were congested and swollen. Laceration of perineum was present. Hymen was ruptured posteriorly. Vaginal posterior laceration also present. Bruising were present over breast region. Colour brown and 6 greenish.” The medical officer has opined in her report that there was evidence of commission of rape. The question before this Court is that whether accused/appellant Dinesh Lal committed rape as suggested by prosecution or not.

#6. P.W.2 Pushpa (victim) has stated that she knows Dinesh Lal, and identifies him by his voice. She further told that on the day of incident when her brother had gone to school, and other members were also gone out for work she was all alone when accused Dinesh Lal entered in the house, and knocked down her on floor whereafter the accused/appellant Dinesh Lal committed rape on her. She further stated that she started weeping. The witness has further narrated that when Suresh Lal (P.W.3) came to her house she told her about the incident. P.W.2 Pushpa further told that when her father (P.W.1) came in the evening she narrated the horrifying story. According to this witness next day Village 7 Panchayat was called. She further told that she was medically examined by the Doctor.

#7. P.W.3 Suresh Lal and P.W.4 Shiv Lal, Village Pradhan, have corroborated the fact that Village Panchayat was called in the matter on

24.12.1995, in which the accused Dinesh Lal admitted his guilt in the presence of the Village PANCHAS. P.W.1 Jabru father of the victim has proved the FIR lodged by him with the Revenue Police.

#8. From the evidence on record, after reappreciating the same, this Court is in complete agreement with the trial court that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 376 IPC, against accused Dinesh Lal. The sentence awarded by the trial court i.e., rigorous imprisonment for seven years is the minimum sentence prescribed under the law for such a offence. As such, there appears no scope of interference with the impugned order passed by the trial court. 8

#9. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. Appellant was in jail. He shall be taken into custody only if he has not served out the sentence. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 17.09.2012