SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hari Singh Rawat vs State on 8 March, 2018

+ CRLA. 248/2017 Crl.M. (Bail) 7/2018
HARI SINGH RAWAT ….. Appellant
Through:Mr. S.K. Sethi with Ms. Dolly Sharma,


STATE …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP


% 08.03.2018

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:

1. There are cases that shock the judicial conscience. This is one. In our
country studies have shown that a large number of instances of rape are by
close family members. The victim silently suffers the ordeal for years on
end. This is one such case of incestuous rape. The Appellant here has been
held guilty by the trial Court of repeatedly raping his step-daughter over a
period of eight years. The victim picked up courage to break her silence and
go to the police on 23rd June 2015. By then she had given birth to two
children, aged 6 and 3 years at the time. DNA tests have confirmed that the
Appellant is their biological father.

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 1 of 12

2. By this judgment this Court affirms the judgment of the trial Court. This
Court draws attention to the urgent need for a comprehensive scheme,
preferably legislative, to address the needs of the victims of crime, which in
this case includes not only the prosecutrix, but her children and the wife and
children of the Appellant. Complete justice requires redressing the victim‟s
suffering even while punishing the criminal.

This appeal

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgement dated 10th
August 2016 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)/Special Fast
Track Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi was passed in Session Case
No. 9243 of 2015 arising out of FIR No. 916 of 2015 registered at Police
Station (PS) Vasant Vihar. The Appellant has been convicted of the offences
under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC (rape committed by a close relative) and
Section 376 (2) (n) IPC (repeated commission of rape) and Section 506 IPC
(criminal intimidation). This appeal also challenges the order on sentence
dated 17th August 2016 whereby he was sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default of payment of fine to
undergo rigorous imprisonment („RI‟) for six months for each of the
offences under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 376 (2) (f) IPC; and for the offence
under Section 506 IPC to undergo RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 5,000,
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for three months. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently. 50% of the fine amount was
directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 2 of 12


4. The background facts are that Kamala (PW-2), the mother of the
prosecutrix (PW-1), was earlier married to one Babu Lal and was living in
Dehradun. From that marriage PW-1 and her brother Deepak (PW-3) were
born. However, after the birth of PW-3, Babu Lal left home and did not
return. After waiting for some time, PW-2 moved out and started living with
her two children in another tenanted portion in Dehradun where she met the
Appellant. According to PW-2, she and the Appellant then got married.
Thereafter, she and the two children, PWs 1 and 3, started residing with the
Appellant at his village Guni in District Tehri Gadhwal in Uttarakhand.

5. The Appellant, PW-2 and the two children shifted to Delhi and first lived
in a rented portion in Rangpuri. PW-1 (the prosecutrix) was around 12 to 13
years old at this time. After a while they shifted to Shanker Vihar, Delhi
again in another rented house. There PW-2 started working in the „kothis’
(bungalows) which kept her away from home mostly throughout the day,
from 5 am in the morning till even past midnight or 1 am on the following

6. Five more children, three daughters and two sons, were born to PW-2 and
the Appellant. All of them i.e., their five children and the two children from
the earlier marriage of PW-2 with Babu Lal were initially living together.
The Appellant admittedly turned Deepak (PW-3) out of the house when he
was only around 13 years old. Since then PW-3 had been residing separately
in Delhi.

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 3 of 12

The incidents in question

7. It appears that from about 8 years prior to the date of the complaint made
by her on 23rd June 2015, the Appellant began raping PW-1. During this
time PW-1 did not know that the Appellant was not her biological father.
The Appellant, who worked on and off as a driver, would constantly get
drunk, beat up PW-1, subject her to rape and threaten to kill her if she
disclosed that fact to anyone, including her mother. As already mentioned,
PW-1 gave birth to two children one of whom was born about 7 years prior
to 23rd June 2015 and the other about 3 years prior thereto. Till the date of
her complaint the Appellant repeatedly subjected PW-1 prosecutrix to rape
and criminal intimidation.

8. PW-2 protested to the Appellant but he criminally intimated her as well.
Neither PW-1 nor PW-2 had the courage to complain to anyone. The further
case of PW-1 is that the Appellant never let her leave the house or interact
with anyone.

9. Around 4 or 5 days prior to 23rd June 2015 the Appellant became drunk as
he often did and in that state beat PW-1 and the other children. Thereafter
the Appellant threw PW-1 out of the house. Whilst PW-1 was waiting near
gate No.2 of the colony, her brother, Deepak (PW-3) happened to pass by in
a car with which he was employed as a driver. PW-3 then took PW-1 to his
house in Vasant Vihar. PW-1 narrated to PW-3 what had happened with her.
PW-3 took PW-1 to the PS in Vasant Vihar on 23rd June 2015 and the
complaint of PW-1 was recorded (Ex.PW-1/A). On the same day she was
taken before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) and her statement

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 4 of 12
was recorded under Section 164 Cr PC (Ex.PW-1/A).

10. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the blood samples of PW-
1, her children and the Appellant were obtained for the DNA Test. As
already noticed, DNA profile of the children of PW-1 matched those of PW-
1 and the Appellant thereby confirming that the Appellant is the biological
father of the children born to PW-1. In fact the Appellant himself did not
specifically controvert this in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC.

11. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were subjected to extensive cross-examination by
learned counsel for the Appellant in the trial Court. The line of defence was
that PW-1 knew throughout that the Appellant was not her biological father
and had a sexual relationship with him of her own free will. The Appellant
contended that he and PW-2 was never actually married and therefore, it
could not be said that he was the step father of PW-1. Both PW-1 and PW-2
denied the said suggestions. Apart from corroborating each other on the
material particulars, both PWs 1 and 2 consistently maintained the version
given by PW-1 to the police in the first place and later in her statement
before the learned MM under Section 164 Cr PC.

12. As rightly held by the trial Court, the evidence of PW-1 in the present
case is clear, cogent and consistent and has been unable to be shaken in
cross-examination by learned counsel for the defence. Apart from PW-2, she
has been corroborated to some extent by PW-3 as well. The scientific
evidence in the form of DNA report prepared by the FSL, Chandigarh
confirms that the Appellant is the biological father of two of the children

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 5 of 12
born to PW-1.

13. Mr. Sumer Sethi, learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that PW-
1 was 30 years old at the time of filing her complaint on 23rd June 2015.
She was by her version around 22 years when she first had sexual relations
with the Appellant. According to him, it was unbelievable that despite being
subject to rape continuously during this period, and giving birth to two
children, she would not complain to anyone. He urged that there was an
inordinate delay of over 8 years in filing the complaint which resulted in the
registration of the FIR. PW-1 could, according to Mr. Sethi, not be said to be
a reliable or truthful witness.

Delay explained

14. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission. In a case where
a woman has been continuously subjected to forcible rape over an extended
period of time and by a person in a position of trust as a father, the fear that
he must have instilled in her can well be understood. The following
statements in her examination in chief, which could not be controverted by
the Appellant are revealing:

“I know accused Hari Singh Rawat as my father, (who is present in
Court and correctly identified by the witness) but after the registration
of the case, I came to know that he is not my real father. I am

15. She must have been shocked and highly traumatized at having endured
the mental and physical torture for many years with no support whatsoever.
Her further statement in her examination-in-chief was:

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 6 of 12

“As a result of the physical relationship i.e. rape committed by the
accused, I was pregnant twice and gave birth to two children namely
X and Y (names withheld). At present, X is about 6 years old and Y is
about 3 years old. I do not know the name of the hospital where I gave
birth to them as accused took me to the hospital for the purpose of
delivery. I even do not have any document regarding certificate of
birth of my children. I did not disclose to anybody about the rape
committed by the accused as the accused had threatened to kill me if I
disclose to anybody.”

“The accused never allowed me to go out of the house and I could not
disclose the fact of the accused to any of my relative. At the time of
taking me to the hospital for delivery, accused did not take any other
person with me in the hospital and he took me alone to the hospital.
The accused since never allowed me to go out from the house and in
the locality of Shankar Vihar, nobody even knew that the accused was
having elder daughter i.e. me. I do not know as to where is my real

16. And in her cross-examination, PW-1 maintained that:

“It never happened when I and my mother were at house when
accused went outside the house, therefore I never told my mother
about the wrong acts of the accused though as and when I tried to tell
my mother about the incident, accused used to start beating my
mother as well.”

17. The plight of PW-2 was also understandable since apart from the
prosecutrix and PW-3, she had five other children with the Appellant whom
she could not possibly abandon.

Social realities

18. It requires a great deal of courage for a woman in the situation as PW-1
was in, to make a complaint against who she considered her own father.
More than 25 years ago in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 7 of 12
Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658 the Supreme Court observed:

“It is, however, unfortunate that respect for womanhood in our
country is on the decline and cases of molestation and rape are
steadily growing. An Indian woman is now required to suffer
indignities in different forms, from lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from
molestation to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be
promoted and protected only if we deal strictly with those who violate
the societal norms. The standard of proof to be expected by the Court
in such cases must take into account the fact that such crimes are
generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a
person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise
that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her
reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity.”

19. Again in Om Prakash v. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2214 it was

“11. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as
accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration
from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given
case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of
rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like
to disclose such offence even before her family members much less
before public or before the police. The Indian woman has tendency to
conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as
prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family
members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a

20. It must have taken a lot for the prosecutrix to walk into the police station
and submit a complaint of the above nature. Strangely, this might not have
been possible if the Appellant had not thrown her out of the house after
beating her. That her brother Deepak was able to provide her with shelter

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 8 of 12
and support and this in turn led to the prosecutrix invoking the process of
law is also a significant feature of the case. The delay in filing the FIR in the
present case has been satisfactorily explained.

Offences made out

21. As far as the plea that the Appellant was not her biological father, and
this fact was known to PW-1 is concerned, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2
have proved otherwise. Apart from a bare denial of his marriage with PW-2,
the Appellant has not led any evidence to dislodge the trustworthy and
reliable evidence of PW-2 who speaks clearly of her marriage to him..
Moreover, the Appellant does not deny that he is the biological father of the
five children born to him and PW-2. All of them resided as one family.
Throughout the time she was with him, PW-1 grew up believing that the
Appellant was indeed her father. In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC
the Appellant has not denied that he is the biological father of the children
born to the prosecutrix. In the circumstances, the guilt of the Appellant for
the offence of rape by a close relative as defined in Section 376 (2) (f) IPC is
clearly established. That the Appellant continued to rape her over a number
of years and continuously till she left the home a few days before she went
to the police has also been proved by the cogent evidence of PW-1, fully
corroborated by PW-2. Therefore the guilt of the Appellant for the offence
under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC is also proved by the prosecution

22. Learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out that 8 pullandas have
been prepared in the hospital where MLC of the Appellant was undertaken
and these 8 pullandas sealed have been sent to the FSL as is spoken to by

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 9 of 12
PW-13. However, the Scientist from the CFSL mentioned four parcels. The
Court does not find any major discrepancy. The four parcels seized which
were found by PW-11 were those which contained the blood samples of the
Appellant, the prosecutrix and her two children and this is what was
examined and generated the report that incriminated the Appellant.

23. There is no reason for the Court to doubt the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2.
The Court is unable to find any error in the impugned judgment of the trial
Court convicting the Appellant for the aforementioned offences and the
consequent order of sentence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The
pending application also stands dismissed.


24. In the present case, as the Appellant has himself pointed out in his bail
application, as a result of his facing trial and then being convicted and
sentenced, the Appellant‟s wife (PW-2) and his children have been pushed
into poverty. The children have had to abandon their studies. Justice cannot
be said to be done in the present case without the needs of the victims of
crime being addressed. In this scenario, the victims of the crime include not
only PW-1 but her children, PW-2 and her children as well. The law at
present fails to properly address the multiple ways in which the families of a
convicted criminal suffer.

25. Recently in a judgment dated 20th November 2017 in Crl A No. 173 of
2015 (Babloo Chauhan v. State) this Court observed:

“15. As far as compensating the victims of crime is concerned,

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 10 of 12
Sections 357 and 357 A to C of the Cr PC provide for compensation
to the victim of crime. The effective implementation of these
provisions hinges upon the concerted efforts of legal services
authorities and governments. As far as compensating ‘persons
groundlessly arrested’, Section 358 Cr PC offers some token relief.
This provision however fails to acknowledge the multiple ways in
which not only the prisoner, who may ultimately be declared to be
innocent, but the family of the prisoner faces deprivation and
hardship. Particularly poignant is the plight of the spouse, children
and aged parents of the prisoner who are unable to find legal redress
for their losses. The Delhi High Court has on more than one occasion
stepped in to order provision of shelter, educational and health needs
of the children whose parents, either or both, are in jail serving

16. There is an urgent need, therefore, for a legal (preferably
legislative) framework for providing relief and rehabilitation to
victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration. Whether this
should be an omnibus legislation or scheme that caters to both the
needs of the victim of the crime, as well those wrongfully
incarcerated, including the family and dependants of the prisoner, or
these have to be dealt with in separate legislations or schemes is a
matter for discussion, deliberation and consultation with a cross-
section of interest groups. Specific to the question of compensating
those wrongfully incarcerated, the questions as regards the situations
and conditions upon which such relief would be available, in what
form and at what stage are also matters requiring deliberation. This is
a task best left in the first instance to the body tasked with advising
the government on the legislative measures needed to fill the obvious

26. In the present case, the above observations bear reiteration. In view of
the dire situation in which PWs 1 and 2 and their respective children are
placed, the Court considers it necessary to issue the following directions:

(i) The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) will

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 11 of 12
in co-ordination with the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW)
ensure that:

(a) PW-1 has received compensation as a victim of rape under the
extant Government schemes.

(b) The children of PW-1 and PW-2, if they have not yet completed
18, are receiving all the benefits they are entitled to under the
schemes of the Central and State government;

(c) That the children are receiving the education they are entitled
to at government schools. If not, all assistance shall be provided
to them for that purpose.

(ii) The concerned SHO will forthwith provide to the Chairpersons of
the DCPCR and DCW the addresses and other contact details of PWs 1
and 2, so that the above directions are implemented without delay.

27. Certified copies of this order be delivered forthwith to the
Chairperson or Secretary of the DCPCR and DCW through a Special
Messenger. The learned Standing counsel for the State will collect a
copy of this order dasti and immediately provide it to the SHO
concerned for compliance with the above directions.



MARCH 08, 2018

Crl.A. 248/2017 Page 12 of 12

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation