SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kashmir Singh Alias Kashmiru vs State Of H.P on 2 July, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No.286 of 2014
Date of Decision: 02.07.2018

.
[

Kashmir Singh alias Kashmiru ………Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. ……….Respondent

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.

For the appellant: Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional
Advocate Generals with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal
Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Instant criminal appeal having been filed by the appellant-

accused, is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

4.3.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

in Session case No. 11-B/VII/2013, whereby learned court below while holding

the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 4

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 452

506 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-

“Under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, convicted and sentenced the
accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, In default of fine
of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months.

Under Section 452 IPC, accused is sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of
Rs. 2000/-. In default, of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-2-

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence
punishable under Section 506 IPC.”

2. Precisely the facts as emerge from the record are that on

.

26.1.2013, complainant (PW3) got his statement recorded under Section 154

Cr.PC., alleging therein that on 25.1.2013, his minor daughter, who is studying

in class 9th after having meals, had gone to sleep alongwith her grandmother,

in a room on the first floor of the house, whereas he (PW3) and his two sons,

had gone to sleep in the ground floor. Grandmother of the prosecutrix woke

him up at about 12:30 am and disclosed that accused had intruded into the

house and had run out of the house. PW3/complainant though made an

attempt to chase the accused, but in vain. Subsequently, prosecutrix (PW2)

informed her father (PW3) that accused person had committed penetrative

sexual assault with her without her consent and will. She also disclosed that

accused was having knife with him and he had gagged her mouth, as such,

she was unable to resist. Allegedly, accused had left his torch (make Orkia) at

the scene of the crime, which was subsequently handed over to the police.

One Shri Vijay Kumar, (brother of PW3) had also gone in the search of the

accused on hearing screams of his mother, but in vain. PW3/complainant

narrated the entire incident to Shri Vijay Kumar, who advised him and other

family members to take action after dawn. Allegedly, PW3 and Vijay Kumar

went in search of the accused person on the next date, but accused was not

found at his house. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR

(Ext.PW3/A), came to be lodged against the accused. After lodging of

aforesaid FIR, police got the prosecutrix examined at Civil Hospital at Baijnath.

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-3-

Accused came to be arrested on 27.1.2013. After completion of investigation,

police presented the challan in the competent court of law, who being

satisfied that prima-facie case exists, against the accused, charged him for

.

having committed offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 452 506 of IPC, to

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on record

by the prosecution held the accused guilty of having committed offence

punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 and Sections 452 506 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and

sentenced him as per the description given herein above. In the aforesaid

background, appellant-accused has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgment of

conviction recorded by the court below.

4. Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel, representing the appellant-

accused while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment of

conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, vehemently contends that

same is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, same

cannot be allowed to sustain. Mr. Sharma, further argues that learned court

below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a

consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record to the

detriment of the accused, who has been falsely implicated in the case. With

a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Sharma, made this Court to

peruse the statements of prosecution witnesses to demonstrate that there are

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-4-

material contradictions and in-consistencies and as such, there was no

occasion for the court below to hold the accused guilty of having committed

offence punishable under the said sections. While specifically referring to the

.

Sections 24 and 36 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Mr.

Sharma, argues that since Investigating Agency failed to carry out

investigation strictly in terms of provision contained in the aforesaid section,

entire investigation has vitiated and court below ought to have not placed

any reliance upon the conclusion, if any, drawn by the Investigating Agency

while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Mr. Sharma, further contends that

learned trial Court while holding accused guilty of having committed offence

punishable under the Sections as referred herein above, has solely placed

reliance upon the statement of prosecutrix-PW2 and medical evidence led on

record, which has been further substantiated by PW11 Dr. Praveen Thakur, but

if the statement of these two material prosecution witnesses are read in its

entirety, it nowhere proves the case of the prosecution, rather creates serious

doubt with regard to the correctness and genuineness of the story put forth by

the prosecution. Lastly, Mr. Sharma contends that prosecution, for the reasons

best known to it, failed to examine most important witnesses i.e. grandmother

and brother of the complainant namely Vijay Kumar, who allegedly had an

occasion to see the accused at the first instance after the alleged incident.

5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while

refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by Mr. Sharma,

contends that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of

conviction recorded by the court below, rather same is based upon proper

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-5-

appreciation of evidence and as such, same needs to be upheld. Mr. Thakur,

further contends that it stands duly proved on record that on the date of

alleged incident, accused entered in the house of the prosecutrix and

.

thereafter, ravished her against her wishes. While inviting attention of this

Court to the seizure memo Ext.PW2/B (knife), Mr. Thakur, contends that

accused himself got knife recovered from the tea garden and similarly, torch

of the accused was recovered from the room of the prosecutrix. While

referring to the medical evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, Mr.

Thakur, contends that PW11 Dr. Praveen Thakur, has categorically opined that

possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out and as such, there is no

illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by

the court below and as such, same deserves to be upheld.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

the record vis-à-vis impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the Court

below, it is quite apparent that the learned court below has placed heavy

reliance upon the statement of prosecutrix (PW2) and (PW11) Dr. Praveen

Thakur, to hold accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under

Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and

Sections 452 506 of IPC. But if the statement of prosecutrix is read in its

entirety, it does not inspire confidence and version put forth by her is wholly

un-believable and untrustworthy and as such, raises serious doubt with regard

to the correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. Though prosecutrix

in her statement has stated that she after having meals had gone to room at

first floor alongwith grandmother, but she also categorically stated that her

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-6-

father and brothers were sleeping in a room on the ground floor. She has

further stated that a person entered the room in midnight and lifted her

blanket, but interestingly, this witness in her cross-examination has

.

categorically admitted that she resides in two story building and there is one

door plank in the ground floor, which was bolted from inside on the date of

alleged incident. Though, she qualified her statement by stating that door

usually gets opened with mere push, but version put forth by the prosecutrix

(PW2), does not appear to be trustworthy at all. It is un-believable that

accused after having opened door succeeded in climbing to the first floor

because as per own statement of prosecutrix, her father and two brothers

were sleeping in the ground floor. Had accused opened the door by pushing

the same, father and brothers of the prosecutrix would have definitely heard

the noise and sound of opening of the door. Similarly, though prosecutrix has

claimed that her grandmother, who at that relevant time, was sleeping in

room of the prosecutrix, is hard of hearing, but still it cannot be believed that

she did not hear the screams of the prosecutrix, who was allegedly

threatened by the accused by showing knife. Prosecutrix stated before the

court below that she was sexually assaulted by the accused and she was

unable to raise alarm as her mouth was gagged, but aforesaid version of her

is not corroborated by the medical evidence adduced on record. Though

medical evidence adduced on record shall be discussed in the later part of

the judgment, but at this stage, if for limited purpose, it is taken into

consideration to test the correctness of version put forth by the prosecutrix

that she was threatened and gagged by the accused, same does not

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-7-

corroborate the version put forth by the prosecutrix because it has nowhere

come in the medical evidence that injury, if any, was found on the mouth or

any part of the body of the prosecutrix. As per prosecutrix, when she raised

.

the alarm, her grandmother woke up and made an attempt to catch hold of

the accused. She also stated that her grandmother made an attempt to light

a match box, but she was unsuccessful. She further stated that accused while

leaving room switched on the light, which version of her appears to be totally

improbable because in such like situation, no person would switch on the

light, rather he would make all efforts to hide his identity. Interestingly, it has

nowhere come in the statement of prosecutrix that how in the dark room, she

was able to identify the accused, because as per her own version, she had no

prior acquaintance with the accused. As per the prosecutrix, her

grandmother was the first person to see the accused on the spot, but

unfortunately, she has not been examined for the reasons best known to the

prosecution.

7. PW3 complainant, who happened to be father of the

prosecutrix narrated altogether different story while deposing before the court

below. He stated before the court below that he after having heard screams

of his mother went to the first floor, where he saw the accused running out of

the room, but this statement of him is in total contradiction of his statement

recorded under Section 154 of Cr.PC, wherein he categorically reported that

at around 12:30 am, his mother woke him up and informed that accused

person had entered into the house and ran out of the house. If aforesaid

statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, is presumed to be correct, it is

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-8-

not understood that where was the occasion for the complainant (PW3) to

see the accused running from the room on the date of alleged incident. Very

interestingly, this witness in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC,

.

reported that after having heard screams, his brother namely Vijay Kumar,

came to the spot, who advised them to wait till dawn, but for the reasons best

know to the prosecution, he has not been also cited as witness. PW3

deposed that he has two sons and one daughter. On 25.1.2018, he alongwith

his two sons had gone to sleep in a room in ground floor, whereas victim-

prosecutrix alongwith her grandmother had gone to sleep in the first floor. He

also stated that his mother at about 12:30 am, came to his room and told him

that the accused person has been noticed by her in the room, who had fled

away. He also stated that his brother Vijay was also woke up and he

disclosed the incident to him. It also came in his statement that he noticed

that accused had left his torch in the room. If the statements of complainant

(PW3) and prosecutrix (PW2) are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other,

it certainly persuades this Court to agree with the contention of Mr. O.C.

Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner that no much reliance

could be placed upon their version being contradictory and in-consistent.

There are material contradictions in the statements of aforesaid material

prosecution witnesses with regard to entry of the accused in the house and

thereafter, his presence in the room, when alleged incident occurred. The

Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since the fundamental aspect

of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the well established principle that “no

man is guilty until proved so”, utmost caution is required to be exercised in

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
-9-

dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally

large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the

.

evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in

evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in

criminal cases needs to be evaluated on touchstone of consistency. Reliance

is placed on Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and

Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 645, wherein it has been held as

under:-

“45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence
has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to

emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of
an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case

titled Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704,
para 14)
“14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent
consistency and the inherent probability of the story;
consistency with the account of other witness is held to
be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence
becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a

cumulative evaluation.”

46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful
assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the
fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated
principle that “no man is guilty until proven so”, hence utmost caution is

required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are
multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying
before the court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of

all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in
evidence amongst all the witnesses.”

8. As has been noticed above, prosecution has omitted to cite two

material spot witnesses i.e. grandmother and Sh. Vijay uncle of the prosecutrix,

who could be the best persons to corroborate the version put forth by the

prosecutrix, which otherwise does not appear to be trustworthy. Though in the

instant case, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, but learned

court blow has placed heavy reliance upon the statements of prosecutrix

(PW2) and PW11. But if the statement of PW11 is read in its entirety, it nowhere

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP

– 10 –

proves commission of offence, if any, under Section 4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 452 506 of IPC. PW11

namely Dr. Praveen Thakur, who medically examined the prosecutrix opined

.

as under:

“Alleged history of sexual assault around 12.30 a.m. On
26.01.2013. On examination well built average height, vital stable.

Well conscious/oriented to time/place and person, breast well
developed. Axillary hair present. Menarche occurred at the age
of 11 years. Complaining of bleeding per vaginally since morning
5.30 a.m. on 26.01.2013.

Local Examination
Pubic hair present ) No injury present on breast,

Patient menstruating ) abdomen inner aspect of
)forearm thighs, wrist, face
)legs and pelvic region.
Perspeculam Examination

Bleeding per vaginal was present. No laceration injury
was present. Cervix was healthy.

Pervaginal examination
Bleeding per vaginal was present. Vagina was healthy.

Two fingers loose, non-tender. No other external injury was
present.

Systemic examination-NAD.

As per my opinion, there are no injuries/abrasion present
on the body and near internal organs and she is not unfit for
sexual intercourse. She was referred to dental and X-rays

examination for age verification. I handed over to the police the
following articles:-

1. Vaginal swab,

2. Kameez, Salwar, bra, undergarment with pad

3. Pubic hair sealed in separate parcel with hospital

seal and application to Chemical Analyzer through
lady constable Vanita.

The victim was 14 years and she was examined with the

consent of her mother. Per endorsement on MLC.

The final opinion was to be given after chemical analyses
report. I issued MLC Ex.PW11/A which is in my hand and bears my

signatures. Per chemical analyses report is Ext.PW11/B. Blood
and semen could not be detected on the shirt of the victim.
Human blood was detected on her Salwar, underwear, pad, bra
and pubic hair, but semen was not detected. Blood was also
detected on vaginal swab of the victim, but semen was not
detected. In my final opinion, chances of sexual activity cannot
be ruled out and my opinion in this context is Ex.PW11/C which is
in my hand and bears my signatures. Ex.P-3 parcel sealed with
court seal has been shown to me and it contains Salwar, shirt,
undershirt and undergarment. Packet was allowed to be opened.
On opening the parcel, one shirt, one Salwar, one undergarment
and one undershirt have been taken out. Salwar Ext.P-4, shirt
Ext.P-5, undershirt Ex.P-6 underwear with pad Ext.P-7 are the

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP

– 11 –

same. The victim was wearing all these cloths at the time of her
examination.

xxxxx by Sh. Sudhir Samyal, Adv for accused.
I cannot rule out sexual penetrating assault in this case. It is
correct to suggest that on victim being subjected to sexual
penetrating assault for the first time she is likely to suffer injury on

.

vabla labia majora. There is no such injury. I cannot say that the

victim was habitual to intercourse voluntarily that she had been
subject to intercourse earlier. It is incorrect that since the
secondary character of the victim was well developed, she was
more than 16 years. The dental and radiological reports were not
shown to me. It is incorrect that the police told me the age of the

victim. Self-stated that the victim herself and her grand mother
apprised me about her age. It is incorrect that the victim did not
tell me her age. It is incorrect that in the present case there is no
evidence about commission of sexual penetrating assault.”

Careful perusal of aforesaid statement given by the doctor

PW11 as well as MLC adduced on record clearly suggests that on the date of

alleged incident, prosecutrix was menstruating and no injury on any part of

the body of the prosecutrix was noticed/found at the time of medical

examination. Doctor has categorically stated that “as per my opinion, there

are no injuries/abrasion present on the body and near internal organs and she

is not unfit for sexual intercourse.”

9. Doctor in his report has simply stated that he cannot rule out the

chances of sexual intercourse. But if her statement is examined and perused

in light of report submitted by the RFSL, this Court is persuaded to agree with

the contention of Mr. O.C. Sharma that no case, if any, is made out against

the accused under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 452 506 of IPC. RFSL, Dharamshala has

categorically reported that no blood and semen could be detected on the

cloths and pubic hair of the accused. No doubt as per report of FSL, some

human blood was found on the Salwar of the prosecutrix, but that could not

be a ground to conclude that blood was on account of sexual assault, if any,

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP

– 12 –

committed by the accused, rather it has come in the report of the doctor that

at the time of medical examination, victim was menstruating and as such,

possibility of her own blood on her cloths cannot be ruled out, especially

.

when there is no definite opinion of FSL with regard to the human blood

present on the clothing of the prosecutrix. There is no definite opinion given

by the PW11 or by FSL that human blood detected on the Salwar of the

prosecutrix was of the accused. Similarly, human semen was detected on the

underwear of the accused, but as per report no human semen was found on

the undergarments of the prosecutrix as well as her pubic hair.

10. Having carefully examined/analyzed evidence led on record

vis-à-vis story put forth by the prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to

conclude that story put forth by the prosecution is wholly unbelievable and

untrustworthy. Version put forth by the prosecutrix with regard to the entry of

the accused in the room and thereafter, her being ravished by the accused

that too in the presence of the grandmother, is highly improbable and cannot

be accepted in the absence of any piece of corroborative evidence , if

any, led on record by the prosecution. In the case at hand, though

prosecution with a view to prove the version put forth by the prosecutrix has

made an attempt to introduce grandmother by stating that she was able to

identify the accused while he was leaving the room, but unfortunately, she

has not been cited as prosecution witness. There is no cogent and

convincing evidence led on record to prove its case by the

prosecution and as such, no conviction, if any, could be recorded on highly

improbable and unbelievable version put forth by the prosecutrix. There is

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP

– 13 –

another aspect of the matter that there is no explanation available on record

that how accused could identify the prosecutrix in a dark room because

admittedly two persons i.e. grandmother and prosecutrix were sleeping in the

.

room, meaning thereby, accused could go to any room including the ground

floor, where PW3 and his sons were sleeping. There is no evidence that at the

first instance, accused after entering the room made efforts, if any, to

ascertain or verify the identity of the victim, to whom the accused wanted to

ravish and as such, story being highly improbable, deserves to be rejected

outrightly. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in case titled State of HP v. Sohan Lal, Latest HLJ 2016(HP) 1585,

relevant para whereof is reproduced herein below:

“14. Version of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-10 that accused has
committed offence in a room where his mother and other two
daughters were sleeping is unbelievable, more particularly, for
the reason that allegations of violation of person of victim by
accused either for three months or 2-3 times is not corroborated

by medical evidence but has been falsified. PW-7 Dr. Sangeeta
Uppal has opined that possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled
out. However, she has admitted that as per MLC PW7/A issued by
her, there was no sign of mark of injury to show that the child was
sexually assaulted by accused. Opinion of Medical Board

consisting of Chairperson Professor OBJ, Members Assistant
Professor OBJ, Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine and Medical
officer on emergency duty I.G.M.C. Shimla does not lend support

to case of prosecution. As per opinion of Medical Board, there
was nothing to suggest about recent or remote complete sexual
intercourse as also in absence of any evidence in Microbiological
and Chemical analysis. PW-1 Kanta Devi and PW-10 victim has

specifically alleged that accused has committed sexual
intercourse which had resulted into immense pain and bleeding
in private part. Opinion and reports of Medical experts are
contrary to the said version.”

11. After having carefully perused medical evidence adduced on

record and statement of prosecutrix, this Court has no hesitation to conclude

that court below has fallen in grave error while concluding that prosecution

successfully proved on record that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP

– 14 –

assault against her wishes. Though, this Court having discussed and analyzed

the statement of PW3 and PW11, sees no need to elaborate the matter any

further, however, even if statement of PW12 i.e. Inspector Rajinder Sharma,

.

SHO, police station, Baijnath, is perused, it further casts serious doubt with

regard to the correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. He

admitted in his cross-examination that house of the prosecutrix is duplex and

there is only one door to enter in the house, which is situated in the ground

floor. Most importantly, it has come in the cross-examination of this witness

that father and brothers of the prosecutrix used to sleep in the ground floor

and door of the ground floor was not found to be broken. He also admitted in

his cross-examination that no independent witness was associated at the time

of recording of disclosure statement of the accused under Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act, which also raises serious doubt with regard to the

recovery, if any, made by the prosecution of the alleged knife from the tea

garden.

12. As per Section 24 of the Act, statement of victim/child is to be

recorded either at his or her residence or at a place where he she resides or

at place of his/her choice.

“24. Recording of statement of a child.-

1. The statement of the child shall be recorded at the residence of the
child or at a place where he usually resides or at the place of his choice
and as far as practicable by a woman police officer not below the rank of
sub-inspector.

2. The police officer while recording the statement of the child shall not
be in uniform.

3. The police officer making the investigation, shall, while examining the
child, ensure that at no point of time the child come in the contact in any
way with the accused.

4. No child shall be detained in the police station in the night for any
reason.

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP

– 15 –

5. The police officer shall ensure that the identity of the child is
protected from the public media, unless otherwise directed by the Special
Court in the interest of the child.”

Aforesaid provision further provides that as far as practicable, statement of

.

child should be recorded by a woman police officer not below the rank of

sub-inspector. However, in the case at hand there appears to be total non-

compliance of aforesaid provision of law, because admittedly, statement was

recorded by PW12, SHO Rajinder Pal, and there is no explanation rendered on

record that why statement was not recorded by a woman police officer.

Similarly, statement of victim has not been recorded at her residence; rather

same has been recorded at the police station. Section 24(3) further provides

that police officer, while making the investigation shall ensure that while

examining the child, child at no point of time should come into the contact in

any way with the accused. If the Ext.PW12/C is perused carefully it clearly

suggests that recovery was effected in the presence of the prosecutrix from

the tea garden, meaning thereby, police failed to protect the identity of the

child from the public/accused as envisaged under Section 24(3) of the Act.

13. Similarly perusal of Section 36 of the Act, suggests that at the

time of recording statement of child, Special court should ensure that child is

not exposed to the accused in any way at the time of recording of the

evidence.

“36. Child not to see accused at the time of testifying.-

1. The Special Court shall ensure that the child is not exposed in any
way to the accused at the time of recording of the evidence, while at the
same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the statement
of the child and communicate with his advocate.

2. For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Special Court may record the
statement of a child through video conferencing or by utilising single
visibility mirrors or curtains or any other device.”

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP
– 16 –

14. It has been further provided that the Court may record the

statement of a child through video conferencing or by utilizing single visibility

mirrors or curtains or any other device. But in the instant case, if the statement

.

of prosecutrix is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that no such precaution

was taken because prosecutrix specifically stated that accused person in

Court is the same person, who had entered her room on the date of alleged

incident.

15. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein

above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the

view that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence as well as law on

the point in its right perspective as a consequence of which erroneous

findings have come on record. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and

judgment of conviction recorded by the learned court below is quashed and

set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charges so framed against him. Bail

bonds discharged. Release warrants be prepared accordingly. Appeal

stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.

2nd July, 2018 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge

05/07/2018 22:59:37 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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