Rihan Rahishu v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

3. 03 R.I. 10 R.I. 10 R.I. 363 IPC 376(2)(n) IPC Section 5(i),(j)(ii)(l )/6 of the POCSO Act Sentence in-default of fine 15 days’ additional S.I. One additional S.I. One additional S.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Facts in brief are that the report of the case was lodged by the informant PW1-father of victim at Police Station by stating therein that his minor daughter aged about 17 years was missing since 01 p.m. of 17.11.2015. The informant searched for his daughter everywhere, but she was not found anywhere. On

29.11.2015, the informant came to know that his minor daughter 2 was enticed away by the appellant with the help of a lady named Guddi residing in the same vicinity. On that day, at about 10:00 when the informant went for a talk with the said lady named Guddi, she became furious and went on to fight. On the basis of aforesaid report, a Case Crime No.169 of 2015 under Sections 363, 366A IPC was registered against the Guddi and the appellant-Rihan. The matter was investigated. Upon completion of which, a charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was submitted against the appellant. The charge was framed against the accused under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5 (i),(j)(ii)(l)/6 of POCSO Act. The charge was read over to the accused, which he denied and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced as many as, seven witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court, at the end of trial, has convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in the

first para of this judgment. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, present appeal has been preferred by the accused from jail.

4. Total seven witnesses have been examined in the matter. Out of which, PW1 is the father of victim. He has stated that his daughter had gone missing in between 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. of

17.11.2015, after 12 days, he came to know that accused-appellant has enticed his daughter away. Then he went to the house of a lady named Guddi who did not say anything and began to fight. Thereafter, he got the report of the incident typed from one boy named Praveen and handed over the same to the Police Station whereupon Exhibit Ka-1 was marked. At the time of occurrence, his daughter was aged about 17 years. She studied in Govt. Primary School, Bahadrabad. Police had recovered his daughter along with 3 accused after four months near a restaurant near new Highway and his daughter was handed over to his custody.

5. PW2 is the victim of the case. She has stated that she used to work in Mahalakshmi Factory. She knew the appellant named Rihan who was working in another company. Both the companies in which they were working were adjacent to each other. 5-6 months prior to the occurrence, she used to have talks with the appellant. He used to pressurize her to marry him. Before the occurrence, he had a dispute with her family members. She has further deposed that on the date of incident, the appellant had taken her away on the pretext of marrying her. He took her firstly to the Ghaziabad and had stayed at Aligarh for two months. She did not marry with the appellant. The appellant had established physical relations with her. She was caught by the police at Aligarh. Due to establishing physical relations, she got pregnant twice. She does not know what was her age at that time. She studied at Bahadrabad. Her statement was recorded before the court of Magistrate. This witness has refused to get her internal medical examination.

6. PW3-Arun Kumar is the Head Master of the School where the victim had studied. He has brought the S.R. Register of the School wherein the name of victim was mentioned at S.No.1769 and according to school records her date of birth is 10.07.1998. He has also produced the copy of Register whereupon Exhibit Ka-2 was marked.

7. PW4 is the mother of victim. She has stated that two years before the accused has enticed away her daughter and committed “bad work” with her. The lady named Guddi was residing nearby her residence. Guddi had also introduced her daughter with the appellant. Her daughter was recovered after four 4 months of occurrence nearby a restaurant. The age of her daughter is 17 years at the time of incident.

8. PW5- Head Constable Pratap Dutt Sharma has proved the chik FIR Exhibit Ka-1 and copy of G.D. Exhibit Ka-4.

9. PW6-Dr. Monika Rana who has conducted the medical examination on the victim. According to medical examination report, the clinical opinion given by PW6 is that according to the victim, she was consistent with the recent sexual intercourse/assault. According to victim, she was pregnant even at the time of medical examination and her hymen was torn.

10. PW7 is the S.I. Manish Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the submission of charge-sheet against the accused.

11. I have heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and perused the entire evidence available on record.

12. PW1, the father of victim in his evidence has proved the report Exhibit Ka-1 and has also stated that in between 1 to 1:30 p.m. of 17.11.2015, his daughter had gone missing and she could be recovered after four months of incident in the company of appellant. He has further stated that on having interaction with the victim at home, the victim had informed that the accused had enticed her away and had also committed “bad work” with her. This fact is also established that the victim and accused were working in the factories which were adjacent to each other. He has proved the FIR and handed over the same at the police station. On the basis of which chick FIR was lodged and the investigation ensued. 5

13. PW2 victim has stated the fact that in the adjacent factories, she and the accused were working. 5-6 months prior to occurrence, she used to interact with the accused. He used to pressurize her for marriage. The accused had a dispute with the parents of victim. Even before the occurrence, they were having prior interaction with each other and he wanted to marry the victim. But he did not do so. He firstly took her to Ghaziabad and then to Aligarh, where they stayed for two months. The Police had caught them from Aligarh nearby a restaurant. This fact clearly proved that the recovery of victim was made while she was in the company of accused.

14. So far as the offence under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO is concerned, it is clear from the evidence that the recovery of victim was made on 16.03.2016, which proves that victim stayed with the accused for about four months as stated by victim on her evidence that she was caught with the accused after four months by the Police. She has clearly stated that the accused had established physical relations with her, due to which, she became pregnant twice. Her medical examination was also conducted by the Medical Officer, but she has refused for her internal examination. When the Police had apprehended her, she was three months pregnant.

15. Age of the victim has been proved from the school record by PW3-Arun Kumar, Head Master of the School. Victim’s date of birth was proved as 10.07.1998 and thus she was less than 18 years of age on or before the date of incident i.e. 17.11.2015.

16. PW6 Dr. Monika Rana has also proved this fact that victim refused for internal examination. 6

17. From the aforesaid discussions and in view of the evidence discussed hereinabove, it is proved amply that the accused/appellant kidnapped the victim and put her in danger of being subjected to his unnatural lust knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of and committed rape/sexual assault repeatedly on her continuously for four months, due to which, she became pregnant twice. It is also proved from the evidence given by PW3-Arun Kumar, Head Master of the first attended school of victim that the victim was minor at the time of occurrence. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363 IPC & 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(i)(j)(ii)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act.

18. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court is hereby affirmed.

19. Appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence so imposed against him.

20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the trial court to inform the appellant about the fate of his appeal. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

24.09.2025