SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lal Mohammed vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 24 January, 2020

$~R-53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 08th January,2020
Judgment Pronounced on: 24th January,2020

+ CRL.A. NO. 1065/2018
LAL MOHAMMED ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. S.P Nangia and Mr. R.C.S.
Bhadona, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE(NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State with
Inspector Vikram Singh, PS Sangam Vihar.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

JUDGMENT

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

1. Present appeal arise out of judgment dated 27.07.2018 and order of
sentence dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO), South District, Saket
Courts in Sessions Case No. 6913/2016, in FIR No. 528/2012,
registered under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) read with Sections 4/5(l)(m)(n)/6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’) at Police Station Sangam Vihar,

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 1 of 34
whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant-accused
guilty and sentenced him as follows:

“Hence, in my considered opinion, the convict does not
deserve any leniency and interest of justice would be
met if the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment as under:-

(1). Rigorous imprisonment for “Life” for the
commission of the offence punishable under section 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
POCSO Act, 2012 (Act 32 of 2012), and to pay fine in
the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand
only).

(2). Rigorous imprisonment for a period of
seven (07) years for the commission of the offence
punishable under section 506 Part-II of the Indian
Penal Code.

[7] Since, the convict is awarded sentence under
section 6 r/w section 5(l) (n) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hence no
separate sentence is awarded to him for offence
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code

[8] Ordered accordingly. All the sentences shall run
concurrently.”

2. The facts, as elaborated by the trial court are extracted in extenso, as
follows: -:

“[2] The brief facts of the case are that on
22.12.2012, when Investigating Officer (IO)/Insp.
Kamini Gupta was posted as a Sub-Inspector at PS-

Ambedkar Nagar, on that day, on the directions of
senior officers, she reached the PS-Sangam Vihar,
where the victim, namely, ‘T’ (PW1, whose full
particulars are withheld in order to conceal the
identity) was found present alongwith her Mausi, and

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 2 of 34
she made a complaint against her father Lal
Mohammed that he has been committing rape upon her
under the threat to kill her. The Investigating Officer
got counseled the victim girl from the ‘Prayatn NGO’.
The victim ‘T’ gave her statement to the Investigating
Officer that “[She resides at the given address
(withheld in order to conceal her identity) of her
maternal grandmother along with her father Lal
Mohammed (the accused) and her Mausies (sisters of
her mother). She stated that when she was a child, her
mother had expired and thereafter, her father married
to her Mausi, namely, ‘SP’ (the sister of her mother).
She has one elder brother who is studying in 11 th class
and she is studying in 8th class. She further stated that
in the year 2009, when she was in 5th class, at that
time, her father Lal Mohammed came near to her and
called her towards him. She went to him, he sat on the
bed and touched and kissed on her breasts. Thereafter,
he used to do such acts with her as and when he would
get time. She further stated that in the year 2010, she
does not remember the date, but in the evening time
when she was studying, her father Lal Mohammed
came into the room and asked her to lie down as he has
to tell her something. Subsequently, her father Lal
Mohammed started removing her wearing salwar and
when she resisted to his such acts, he slapped her two-
three times, and when she tried to scream, he gagged
her mouth and committed rape upon her. After
committing rape upon her, Lal Mohammed threatened
her to kill her and to send her back to her native place
where 10-10 people will commit sexual intercourse
with her, if she will disclose about the incident to
anyone. Thereafter, accused Lal Mohammed started
committing rape upon her 2-3 times in a week. On
15.08.2010 also, when her father again attempted to
commit rape upon her, she told him that she will
disclose about his such wrong acts to her mother, and
then he pressed her neck. He used to commit rape upon

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 3 of 34
her several times around 8-10 times in a month, when
her mother used to be outside the house or in the
bathroom. On 15.12.2012, in the morning, when her
father came to her for committing sexual intercourse
with her, she told him that her menstruation cycle was
due on 05th December, but she could not have the
same. Then, her father (the accused) told her to give
him her urine sample and he will get it checked. She
gave her urine sample to the accused and after some
time the accused returned home and handed over a
paper slip to the victim telling that nothing has come in
the urine test. She hid the said paper slip with her. She
used to remain sick and thereafter on 15.12.2012, her
mother took her to the doctor and the victim showed
the said paper slip to the doctor, on seeing which, the
doctor told that there was nothing in the said slip. On
asking by the doctor, she narrated about the incident to
the doctor and subsequently, the doctor had disclosed
about the incident so narrated by the victim, to the
mother of the victim. Her mother took her to the police
station and lodged the complaint with the police].
The victim was got medically examined from the
AIIMS hospital. The accused was arrested in this case
and his potency test was got conducted, wherein it was
opined by the doctor that the accused was capable of
performing sexual intercourse. The exhibits were
seized by the police and sent to the FSL, Rohini for
analysis. The statements of the witnesses were
recorded, and after completion of the investigation, the
charge-sheet was prepared against the accused for the
commission of the offences punishable under sections
376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4/5(l),

(m), (n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, and put up before the Court.
Charge for the commission of the offences punishable
under Sections376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and
sections 4/5(l), (m), (n)/6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was framed against

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 4 of 34
the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial, and the case was proceeded for
prosecution evidence.”

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined 9 witnesses in all. The incriminating evidence and
circumstances were put to the accused before recording his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed to have been falsely
implicated and chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.

4. After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties
and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court held the
accused guilty and convicted him for the charged offences.
Arguments addressed on behalf of Appellant

5. Mr. Krishan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, opened his
arguments by submitting that the impugned judgment dated
27.07.2018 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is
against the facts and settled proposition of law and that the learned
Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material evidence and has
disregarded the cogent evidence in favour of the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned
Trial Court had erred in holding the appellant guilty for the charged
offences and the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court is
perverse; that the evidence which had surfaced during the course of
the trial was not properly appreciated and a proper appreciation of the
facts and circumstances would have definitely resulted in the
acquittal of appellant for the charged offences; that the testimony of
the prosecutrix is totally unreliable as well as there are material

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 5 of 34
contradictions and concealments in her testimony recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C and in her deposition before court; that the
evidence of a child witness has to be evaluated more carefully with
greater circumspection and the same can only be relied upon if there
are no embellishment or improvement therein; that there are severe
contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of other material
witnesses; that the case of the prosecution is neither supported by
medical evidence nor by scientific evidence; that the solitary
testimony of the victim in a case of rape is sufficient to convict the
accused subject to condition that the same inspires confidence of the
Court, but in instant case, the sole testimony of the victim fails to
inspire confidence and is unworthy of acceptance.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned
Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant-accused under the
POCSO Act, as the Act came into existence on 14.11.2012 and
during the alleged period when the offence was committed, the
POCSO Act was not even enforced. He further added that the
offence was committed during a continuous period from 2010 to
2012, wherein the prosecutrix had not disclosed the exact date time
with regard to the sexual assault committed on her in the month of
November/December 2012. It was further submitted that in view of
the aforesaid circumstances the conviction of the appellant-accused
under the POCSO Act was not sustainable in law and the punishment
imposed on the appellant-accused needs to be reduced from life
imprisonment to ten years.

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 6 of 34

8. Counsel for the Appellant lastly urged that the Trial Court had not
properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case; hence,
the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside
Arguments addressed on behalf of State

9. Ms. Aasha Tiwari, learned APP for State, on the other hand, strongly
refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the Appellant and
submitted that the learned Trial Court after proper appreciation of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, has rightly convicted the
appellant for the charged offences and the appeal filed by the
appellant-accused is liable to be dismissed.

10. Learned APP for the State further submitted that the learned Trial
Court has appreciated the testimony of the prosecutrix in its right
perspective and relying on the well-settled proposition of law that the
sole testimony of the victim of a sexual offence is sufficient to base
conviction of the accused. She further submitted that the version of
the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and the
testimony of the prosecutrix before court was consistent, and
unimpeachable. She further submitted that in such cases of heinous
crimes, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of
a child witness, due to normal errors of observation, namely, error of
memory, due to mental disposition at the time of the incident. To
substantiate her arguments learned APP for State relied upon the case
of State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh and Others reported in (1996) 2
SCC 384; State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary
reported in AIR 2018 SC 5412.

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 7 of 34

11. Learned APP for the State further added that the testimony of the
victim is corroborated with the medical evidence (i.e. MLC of the
prosecutrix), as hymen of the victim was not intact, which is
sufficient to credit the version of the prosecutrix that she was
sexually assaulted. She further submitted that the absence of major
external injuries on body of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical
examination would not necessarily mean that she had not been
sexually assaulted or she had not resisted during the time of assault.

12. Based on these submissions counsel for the State urged that this
Court may not interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the
learned Trial Court convicting the Appellant for the alleged offence.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully
examined the impugned judgment and the material available on
record as well.

Settled Principle of Law

14. It is a settled principle of law that in cases involving sexual
assault/rape, it is generally difficult to find any corroborative
witnesses, except the victim herself and therefore, the evidence of the
victim is sufficient for conviction unless there exist compelling
reasons for seeking corroboration. Thus, a conviction can be
sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires
confidence. The Apex Court has time and again held that the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to hold the accused guilty if
it inspires confidence and the same principles have been reiterated in
Vijay v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191.
Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 8 of 34

“14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the
effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to
be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no
corroboration. The court may convict the accused on
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”

15. In Gagan Bihari Samal v. State of Orissa reported as (1991) 3 SCC
562, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whilst observing that
corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case,
held as follows :

“6. In cases of rape, generally it is difficult to find any
corroborative witnesses except the victim of the rape. It
has been observed by this Court in Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3
SCC 217 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 728 : AIR 1983 SC 753] as
follows: (AIR headnote)
“Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a
conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting,
refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of
sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as
a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the
evidence of the girl or the woman who complains
of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the
aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with
doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify
the charge of male chauvinism in a male
dominated society.

A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-
permissive society of India would be extremely
reluctant even to admit that any incident which is
likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred.
She would be conscious of the danger of being
ostracized by the society or being looked down by
the society including by her own family members,
relatives, friends, and neighbours. She would face

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 9 of 34
the risk of losing the love and respect of her own
husband and near relatives, and of her
matrimonial home and happiness being shattered.
If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it
would be difficult to secure an alliance with a
suitable match from a respectable or an
acceptable family. In view of these and similar
factors, the victims and their relatives are not too
keen to bring the culprit to book. And when in the
face of these factors the crime is brought to light
there is a built-in assurance that the charge is
genuine rather than fabricated.”

The above observation has been made by this Court
relying on the earlier observations made by this Court
in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [1952 SCR 377,
386 : AIR 1952 SC 54 : 1952 Cri LJ 547] with regard
to corroboration of girl’s testimony and version. Vivian
Bose, J., who spoke for the Court observed as follows:
(SCR p. 386)
“The rule, which according to the cases has
hardened into one of law, is not that
corroboration is essential before there can be a
conviction but that the necessity of corroboration,
as a matter of prudence, except where the
circumstances make it safe to dispense with it,
must be present to the mind of the judge, …. The
only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must
be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as
the case may be and be understood and
appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of
practice that there must, in every case, be
corroboration before a conviction can be allowed
to stand.”

16. Further, it is also a well settled principle of law that the testimony of
child witness can be relied upon along with other circumstances and
corroborative evidence to convict the accused. Undoubtedly, the

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 10 of 34
settled proposition of law that the evidence of child witness is
required to be scrutinised and appreciated with great caution. In this
regard, reference can be made to the dicta of the Apex Court in the
case of Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in
AIR 2016 SC 5160, wherein the Apex Court has held that:

“22. It is well settled that the evidence of a child
witness must find adequate corroboration, before it is
relied upon as the rule of corroboration is of practical
wisdom than of law. (See Prakash v. State of
M.P. [Prakash v. State of M.P., (1992) 4 SCC 225 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 853] , Baby Kandayanathil v. State of
Kerala [Baby Kandayanathil v. State of Kerala, 1993
Supp (3) SCC 667 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 1084] , Raja Ram
Yadav v. State of Bihar [Raja Ram Yadav v. State of
Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 287 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1004]
, Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of
Maharashtra [Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of
Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 : 1997 SCC (Cri)
685] , State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit [State of
U.P. v. Ashok Dixit, (2000) 3 SCC 70 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
579] and Suryanarayana v. State of
Karnataka [Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka,
(2001) 9 SCC 129 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 413] .)

23. However, it is not the law that if a witness is a
child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found
reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness
must be evaluated more carefully and with greater
circumspection because a child is susceptible to be
swayed by what others tell him and thus a child
witness is an easy prey to tutoring.

(Vide Panchhi v. State of U.P. [Panchhi v. State of
U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1561] )”

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 11 of 34

Appreciation of testimony of the Victim ‘T’

17. In view of the settled law, we shall now examine whether the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of
the victim, is trustworthy, credible and can be relied upon. From the
perusal of the record, it transpires that the prosecutrix has deposed on
same lines and there are no material contradictions in her testimonies.
English Translation of the initial statement (Ex.PW1/A) made by the
victim is reproduced herein below:-

” I reside at the address mentioned above in the
house of my maternal grandmother along with my father
Lal Mohammad and maternal aunts. My mother had died
during the days of my childhood. My father married with
my maternal aunt Shama Parveen who is my mother
presently. I have got one elder brother also who is a
student of 11th standard. I study in 8th standard. In the
month of November, 2009, I cannot recollect the exact
date, when I was in 5th standard, I was studying in the
evening, my father Lal Mohammad came to me and asked
me to come before him. Whereupon, I went to him and
he sat on the bed. My father touched my breast and
kissed on (both the breast). This activity was repeated by
my father intermittently as and when he found the
opportunity. In the month of April 2010, I cannot
recollect the date, I was studying in the evening time
when my father Lal Mohammad came into my room
and took the book from my hand and kept that aside. He
asked me to lie down as he had to tell something to me.

When I lay down he started removing my lower
(‘salwar’). I asked my father as to what he was doing
and he slapped me twice-thrice. When I tried to raise an
alarm, my father clamped my mouth with his hand and
removed his pants and underwear. He applied

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 12 of 34
something on his private part and inserted the same into
my genital. I was feeling much pain and I made much
movement with my hand and feet for coming out of his
hold but in vain. Thereafter, my father threatened to kill
me or to send me to the village where I would be subject
to the same treatment by as many as ten persons, in case
I revealed that incident to anyone. Thereafter, he used
to repeat the said activity twice or thrice in a weak.
When my father tried to do that ill act on 15 th August,
2010 I told him that I would tell the same to my mother
whereupon my father kept on pressing my throat till I told
him not to reveal the same before anyone. My father
used to do that act 8-10 times in a month when my
mother was either out of the home or taking bath.
Sometimes he used to do that act by way of applying
something on his private part and sometimes without
that. In the morning of 15.12.12, when my father came
to me to do the said act I told him that my date of
menstruation was due on 5th but the same didn’t. He
asked me to give him urine sample and he will get the
same checked. I gave the same to him. My father came at
the noon time and after handing over a piece of paper to
me told that nothing had come in the same. I concealed
that paper with me. I remained much ill. On the same day
i.e. 15.12.12, my mother took me to the doctor and I also
took along with me that paper which I had concealed
earlier with me. I showed the said paper to the doctor
and he replied that there was nothing in that. Whereupon
he asked as to whom that paper belonged and I told him
that it belongs to me. The doctor asked me the entire
story and I told him the act of my father Lal
Mohammad. The doctor narrated the entire incident to
my mother. My mother brought me to the Police Station
today. You have recorded my statement which was read
over to me. Stern action may be initiated against my
father Lal Mohammad.”

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 13 of 34

18. English Translation of the statement of victim recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C is reproduced herein below: –

” I reside along with my mother and father at the house of
my maternal grandmother. My father has been committing
rape upon me for the last three years. On being asked not
to do so, he presses my throat and threatens me to do away
with me. I know the meaning of rape (show hesitation) in
stating the meaning in detail. My father has been
committing rape upon me right from the time when I was
in the 5th standard. When my MC (period) had stopped, I
went along with my mother to the doctor on 05.12.12. I had
complained my mother about headache. The doctor sent my
mother outside to take the medicines and after seeing my
urine report he enquired from me. The name of the doctor
is Bhim Singh to whom I told everything. The doctor told
to my mother in the said regard. My mother took me to the
Police Station and got registered a case over there after
getting recorded my statement. My medical examination
was conducted at Medical (AIIMS). The Lady Police sent
me to the ‘Prayas’ yesterday. She has brought me from
there today. I want to go along with my mother.”

19. The victim during her examination-in-chief stepped into witness box
as PW-1 and deposed that :-

“That when I was studying in 5th Standard, about five years
ago, in the year 2009 my father accused Lal Mohammad,
who is present in the court today, touched my breasts and
when I objected and told him that I will tell about the same
to my mother, he warned me against that by stating that he
would give me beatings. Thereafter, he kept on physically
assaulting me.

In April, 2010 I was studying when my father approached
me and asked me to lie down. Thereafter, he scolded me
when I refused. He removed my salwar and committed
wrong act with me. By wrong act I mean that he forcibly
committed rape upon me by inserting his private part into

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 14 of 34
mine. I felt pains. Thereafter, on the occasion of 15.08.10
my father again committed the same act and pressed my
neck also. Thereafter, my father started committed rapes
upon me two-three times every week.

In December, 2012 I did not have my menstrual cycle about
which I told to my father. Upon this my father asked for my
urine, which I gave to him. My father returned and told me
that there was nothing and handed me over some paper slip.
However, I started remaining sick.

On 15.12.2012, I alongwith my mother visited the doctor
and showed the same slip to him. Upon inquiries by the
doctor, I told him about the wrong acts done by my father.
I also told about the same to my mother. My mother called
the police. Police recorded my statement which is on
Ex.PW1/A bearing my signatures at point A. I was also
medically examined. The copy of my statement recorded in
the court earlier is on Ex.PW1/B bearing my signatures at
point A in which I told the same facts. Accused Lal
Mohammad is present in the court today.”

20. Further during her cross examination she stated that :-

“It is correct that what I have stated in court was read over
by me. It is wrong to suggest that I have lodged the
complaint against my father/accused at the instance of my
stepmother. It is wrong to suggest that my father had not
committed rape with me as stated by me in November,
2009, April, 2010 and August, 2010. It is further wrong to
suggest that that my father did not commit rape upon me
on any date. It is wrong to suggest that my father has not
taken my urine for conducting the test. It is wrong to
suggest that my father had not touched my breast. It is
further wrong to suggest that due to quarrel between my
father/accused and Dr. Bhim, false report Ex.PW1/A was
got recorded. It is further wrong to suggest that due to
quarrel between my stepmother and accused/father I have
been forced by my stepmother to lodge this false report
Ex.PW1/A. I have given my statement before Ld. MM. I do

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 15 of 34
not remember if I had stated before Ld. MM that I had given
a written complaint to police against my father/accused. I
had not told this fact regarding rape committed by my father
to my mother prior to disclosing of this fact to Dr. Bhim. I
do not remember in which year I had told about the incident
to Dr. Bhim. I had told about the incident to Dr. Bhim when
I was taken to him by my mother for my treatment when I
was sick and my mother came to know about the incident
that day thereafter when she asked me. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely in the court as well as in
P.S.”

21. Perusal of the aforesaid testimony reveals that PW-1 (prosecutrix)
has been consistent in her statement throughout that the intercourse
was against her wishes and that there was no consent from her side,
as she had been threatened and thereafter, she had been subjected to
penetrative sexual assault by her own father (appellant-accused/Lal
Mohammed). Further the prosecutrix has described in clear and
unambiguous words and her testimony has remained consistent
during her cross examination that her father(appellant-accused/Lal
Mohammed) had committed rape upon her and thereafter threatened
her with dire consequences, if she told anyone about the incident.
Other material witnesses

22. Although the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, as abovementioned,
is sufficient by itself to sustain the conviction of the appellant, unless
there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration, as the same is
a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is
not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given
circumstances. Consequently, it is relevant to highlight that the case
of prosecutrix when appreciated in conjunction with the deposition of

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 16 of 34
PW-2 Shama, PW-5 Nasim Bano, PW-8 Dr. Bhim Singh, is further
substantiated and corroborated. Relevant portion from the testimony
of PW-2 Shama is reproduced herein below:-

“Victim ‘T’ is my daughter and accused Lal Mohammad
is my husband. Victim ‘T’ is aged about 15 years old. As
my daughter Victim ‘T’ was not feeling well regularly
therefore, I took her to doctor. She was also suffering
from fits. However, it was revealed at the doctor’s place
by my daughter that she was being continuously raped
by my husband for the last many years. I came to know
about this fact from the doctor also, whom Victim ‘T’
told about the rapes committed by the accused.
Initially, I was shocked but then, I approached a
Mahila Mandal Ayog and then police was called. My
daughter gave statement to the police. She was also
medically examined. Accused Lal Mohammad is
present in the Court today.”

23. Relevant portion from the testimony of PW-5 Nasim Bano is
reproduced herein below:-

“Since I was not having cordial relations with my
husband, therefore, at the time of the incident I was
living with my mother and my sister, namely, Shama
Praveen. On 15.12.2012, my victim daughter, namely, T
had fallen ill. My sister Shama Praveen took my victim
daughter to doctor Bhim Singh. After taking the
medicines, my sister brought the victim girl back to the
house. On the same day, after their returning to the
home, my sister Sham Praveen had received a
telephonic call from Dr. Bhim Singh, who asked my
sister Shama Praveen to come to his clinic as he had to
make her understand about the disease, the victim was
suffering from and the medicines provided to her.
Pursuant to this call, my sister Shama Praveen went to

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 17 of 34
the clinic of Dr. Bhim Singh. After the meeting with
Dr. Bhim Singh my sister returned to the house and
she told me that Dr. Bhim Singh had told her that the
victim girl had informed him (Dr. Bhim Singh) that
Lal Mohammad, the father of the victim girl had had
sexual intercourse with her several times for a long
time. On this I called the victim girl and in the presence
of Shama Praveen asked her about the facts told by the
doctor. The victim girl had told me that Lal
Mohammad was committing the sexual intercourse
with her for last three years and she could not disclose
this fact on account of the threat given by accused Lal
Mohammad. (At this stage the witness further states)

The victim girl, namely, T is the real daughter of my
elder sister Yasmeen Bano, who has already passed
away. The victim girl has been brought up at the house
of my mother. Accused Lal Mohammad is the husband of
my sister Shama Praveen.

After knowing the facts of sexual harassment with the
victim girl by the accused we remained shocking and in
a dilemma. After about two-three days the matter was
reported to the police. The complaint was made on
22.12.2012. Police recorded my statement in this case.
I identify accused Lal Mohammad, who is present in
the court today.

24. Relevant portion from the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Bhim Singh is
reproduced herein below:-

“On inquiry, victim ‘T’ had told me that her father had
given the said prescription/parchi to her. Thereafter,
victim started weeping. After consoling the victim, she
told me that her father had been making physical
relations with her for the last three years. She had also
told me that her father had threatened her. She also
informed me that her father used to press her neck and
used to threaten to kill her. The victim had requested me

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 18 of 34
not to disclose the said fact to anyone. On hearing this, I
was very surprised and shocked. Thereafter, her mother
came there and they went away. In the evening, I made
a call to the mother of victim and called her. I had
narrated whole information to the mother of victim,
which was told to me by the victim. The mother of the
victim was surprised to hear this and was feeling
giddiness. When she regained consciousness, she
questioned me what she could do. I advised her to give a
complaint to the police. Thereafter, she left my clinic.
After 10-12 days, police came to my clinic and recorded
my statement. It was on 30.12.2012 when police had
recorded my statement. The father of the victim, namely
Lal Mohammad, used to visit my clinic, who is now
present in the court today (correctly identified by the
witness).”

25. Joint perusal of the aforesaid testimonies reveal that the victim for
the first time had told about the alleged incident to Dr. Bhim Singh,
subsequent to which mother of the prosecutrix was informed and
consequently the matter was reported to Police Station Sangam
Vihar. It is also a well established proposition of law that minor
contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses should not be a ground for not accepting an
otherwise reliable prosecution case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh reported in (2011) 4 SCC
324, , has held as under:

” 30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are
bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to
normal errors of observation, namely, errors of
memory due to lapse of time or due to mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of
occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 19 of 34
contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the
truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also
make material improvement while deposing in the
court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.

However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies,
embellishments or improvements on trivial matters
which do not affect the core of the prosecution case,
should not be made a ground on which the evidence
can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its
opinion about the credibility of the witness and record
a finding as to whether his deposition inspires
confidence.

“9. Exaggerations per se do not render the
evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to
test credibility of the prosecution version, when
the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being
tested on the touchstone of credibility.” [Ed.: As
observed in Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar
Singh, (2004) 9 SCC 186, p. 192, para 9.]
Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements
of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the
same may be elaborations of the statement made by the
witness earlier. The omissions which amount to
contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the
root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the
prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness
liable to be discredited.

[Vide State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010)
4 SCC (Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC 152]
, Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3
SCC (Cri) 1130 : AIR 2009 SC 331] , Mahendra
Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [(2009) 11 SCC 334 :

(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1352] and Sunil Kumar
Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of
Maharashtra [(2010) 13 SCC 657 : JT (2010) 12 SC
287] .]”

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 20 of 34

26. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and applying the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the prosecutrix has
clearly and unequivocally stated that she was raped by her father Lal
Mohammed/Appellant-accused, in her statement recorded U/s 164
Cr.P.C and in her deposition before the court. In view of the above,
we are of the considered opinion that the contradictions pointed out
by the counsel on behalf of the appellant-accused are minor in nature
and do not render the evidence of the prosecutrix as unbelievable.

27. Further, as per the version of the prosecution the initial statement
(Ex.PW-1/A) of the victim was recorded by PW-9 Insp. Kamini
Gupta. Relevant portion from the testimony of PW-9 Insp. Kamini
Gupta is reproduced herein below:-

“On 22.02.2012, I was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar as
Sub Inspector. On that day, I was present at police
station and on the directions of Senior officers, I reached
at PS Sangam Vihar where the victim, namely, ‘T’ (name
told as mentioned at Serial No. 01 in the list of witnesses
attached with the charge-sheet) along with her Mausi
was present. I recorded the statement of victim ‘T’
correctly as per her version which is already Ex.PW1/A.
I attested the said statement which bears my signatures
at point B. Thereafter, the victim was taken to AIIMS
Hospital where she was medically examined vide MLC
No.5421/2012 already Ex. PX and her OPD card is now
Ex.PW9/A. After medical examination, the doctor
handed over MLC and the exhibits of the victim in sealed
condition along with sample seal to me. The said exhibits
were seized vide seizure memo now Ex.PW9/B which
bears my signatures at point A. At that time, W/Ct. Pooja
was also joined the investigation with me. Thereafter, we
returned to PS where I made endorsement on the
statement of the victim vide Ex.PW9/C which bears my

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 21 of 34
signatures at point A and at about 9.30 PM, rukka was
handed over to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR.
Thereafter, I along with the W/Ct. Pooja, Ct. Pawan, the
victim and her Mausi reached at the place of occurrence
(address told but withheld in order to conceal identity
and full address is mentioned at Serial No. 01 in the list
of witnesses attached with the charge-sheet), where
accused was found present. He was caught hold with the
help of Ct. Pawan. I also called Ct. Chhattar Singh at
the spot. I prepared site plan at the instance of the
victim which is now Ex.PW9/D which bears my
signatures at point A. Thereafter we returned to PS.”

28. During her cross examination she deposed:-

“The complainant came to PS Sangam Vihar on
22.12.2012 and I recorded her statement on the same
day and not on 22.02.2012. I received information about
at about 5.00-6.00 PM and reached at PS Sangam
Vihar immediately. I took 1-1½ hours for recording the
statement of the victim. Thereafter, I along with the
victim and her Mausi reached at AIIMS Hospital for
medical examination of the victim. I do not remember
about the other persons who accompanied us to the
hospital. Exhibits were deposited in the Maalkhana. We
returned the PS at about 9.00 PM. The accused was
produced by Beat Constable at police station where he
was arrested after inquiries. The accused accompanied
us when we reached his house for preparing the site plan.
All the documents i.e. arrest memo, personal search
memo and disclosure statement of the accused were
prepared at the police station. No document regarding
treatment of the victim from Dr. Bheem was handed over
to me by the mother of the victim. (Vol. it was a very
small clinic and he used to prescribe the medicines only).
It is wrong to suggest that I have not conducted the
investigation in proper and fair manner or that I have
prepared all the documents ante date and time or that
all the documents were prepared while sitting at the

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 22 of 34
police station. It is wrong to suggest that I have not
recorded the statement of Nani of the victim deliberately.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”

29. Perusal of the aforesaid testimony reveal that the OPD card
(Ex.PW9/A) of the victim was prepared at AIIMS Hospital and she
was medically examined vide MLC No.5421/2012(Ex. PX). Relevant
portion of the MLC No.5421/2012(Ex. PX) is reproduced herein
below:-

“Hymen not intact
Finger easily inserted in vagina
No active bleeding/ tears/scars in the perineum
Findings S/o prev vaginal intercourse”

30. Relevant portion of the OPD Card(Ex.PW9/A) is reproduced herein
below:-

“LE. Hymen not intact
PV- Hymen not intact

-1 finger easily inserted in vagina
No active bleedings/ no laceration or tear
Examination suggestive of prev vaginal
intercourse”

31. After examining the above-mentioned medical record it is observed
that the hymen of the victim was not intact and on examination it was
categorically suggested that the victim has a history of vaginal
intercourse. Further it is apparent that the absence of major external
injuries on body of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical
examination would not necessarily mean that she had not been raped
or that she had not resisted at the time of commission of the crime.
Absence of injuries does not indicate her consent or the falsity of the

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 23 of 34
allegations or does not discredit the version of the prosecutrix. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Rafiq v. State reported as (1980) 4 SCC 262
has cited their observations on absence of injuries on the victim, as
well as, importance of corroborative evidence in rape cases. Germane
portion of the judgment is extracted below:

“5…… Corroboration as a condition for judicial
reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a
matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given
circumstances. Indeed, from place to place, from age
to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural
complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral
and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with
dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in
the shape of rule of law in this area be introduced
through a new type of precedential tyranny. The same
observation holds good regarding the presence or
absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor or
the aggressed.

6. …..When rapists are revelling in their promiscuous
pursuits and half of humankind — womankind — is
protesting against its hapless lot, when no woman of
honour will accuse another of rape since she
sacrifices thereby what is dearest to her, we cannot
cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative
testimony, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken
to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as
probable…..”

32. Further as per the version of the prosecution, the vaginal smear of the
victim and the blood of the accused were forwarded to the Forensic
Science Laboratory for examination. Relevant portion of FSL Report
No. 2013/DNA-0004 (Ex.PX-2)is reproduced herein below:

“DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL
Parcel ‘1’ : One sealed adhesive tape sealed with the

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 24 of 34
seal of “CMO AIIMS HOPT ND” containing exhibit
‘1’.

Exhibit ‘1’ : One microslide described as vaginal
smear.

Parcel ‘2’ : One sealed envelope sealed with the seal
of “DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE
AIIMS NEW DELHI” containing exhibit ‘2’.
Exhibit ‘2’ : Gauze cloth piece described as blood in
gauze of accused.

RESULT OF ANALYSIS
Semen could not be detected on exhibit ‘1’. Hence,
DNA analysis could not be performed on exhibits ‘1’
and ‘2’.”

33. Consequently, from a perusal of the FSL Report, it is evident that
Semen was not detected on Exhibit ‘1’ (One micro slide described as
vaginal smear). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wahid Khan
v. State of M.P reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9 has held that the absence
of semen cannot discard the version of the prosecution because
penetration with or without emission of semen is sufficient to make
out an offence of rape. Germane portion of the judgment is extracted
below:

“19. It was also contended by learned counsel for the
appellant that since hymen of the prosecutrix was
found to be intact, therefore, it cannot be said that an
offence of rape was committed on her by the appellant.
This contention cannot be accepted as the offence of
rape has been defined in Section 375 IPC. Explanation
to Section 375 reads thus:

“Explanation.–Penetration is sufficient to
constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the
offence of rape.”

It has been a consistent view of this Court that even the
slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 25 of 34
offence of rape and depth of penetration is
immaterial.

20. It is appropriate in this context to reproduce the
opinion expressed by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence
and Toxicology (22nd Edn.) at p. 495 which reads
thus:

“Thus, to constitute the offence of rape, it is not
necessary that there should be complete penetration
of penis with emission of semen and rupture of
hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the
labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or
without emission of semen or even an attempt at
penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the
law. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally,
the offence of rape without producing any injury to
the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a
case, the medical officer should mention the
negative facts in his report, but should not give his
opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is a
crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal
term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical
officer treating the victim. The only statement that
can be made by the medical officer is to the effect
whether there is evidence of recent sexual activity.
Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal
conclusion, not a medical one.”

(emphasis supplied)

21. Similarly in Parikh’s Textbook of Medical
Jurisprudence and Toxicology, “sexual intercourse”
has been defined as under:

“Sexual intercourse.–In law, this term is held to
mean the slightest degree of penetration of the
vulva by the penis with or without emission of
semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit
legally the offence of rape without producing any
injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal
stains.”

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 26 of 34

22. If the aforesaid facts are kept in mind, it cannot be
disputed that the act of the appellant would certainly
constitute an offence of rape and leaves no amount of
doubt in our mind.”

(emphasis supplied)

34. In view of the ratio of the judgments cited above, we are of the view
that the medical evidence in the present case corroborates the version
of the prosecutrix because as per the MLC of the victim her hymen
was not intact and it was suggested that the victim had a history of
vaginal intercourse. Subsequently we are of the view that since no
semen was detected and no major external injury on the body of the
prosecutrix was found, this in itself does not demolish the version of
the prosecution as the same are countered by the ocular testimony
which have a better standing than the medical evidence.

Whether POCSO applicable to the present case?

35. During the course of arguments an apprehension was expressed by
the learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial court erred in
convicting the appellant-accused under the POCSO Act, as the Act
came into existence on 14.11.2012 and during the alleged period
when the offence was committed, the POCSO Act was not in force. It
was further contended that in view of the above the conviction of the
appellant-accused under the POCSO Act was not sustainable in law
and the same should be reduced from life imprisonment to ten years.
The Learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment while dealing

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 27 of 34
with the aforesaid issue has given its reasoning, which is reproduced
herein below:

“52. Ld. Defence counsel has also submitted that in
this case, the POCSO Act is not attracted because it is
not clear from the statement of the victim as to whether
the accused also committed the alleged offence against
the victim after 14.11.2012 when the POCSO Act 2012
came into effect. Again, this contention of the
accused is without any merit for the following
reasons. PW1 (the victim) at the time of her medical
examination has categorically narrated her sexual
assault history to the doctor in the MLC report
including the other related papers Ex.PW9/A and
Ex.PX that ‘last history of intercourse 01 month
back”. The victim was medically examined on
22.12.2012 and on the same day, the said MLC report
of the victim was prepared, and if one month back
period from 22.12.2012 is calculated, it comes
22.11.2012 and by that time the POCSO Act 2012 was
very much into effect because it has come into effect
from 14.11.2012. Further, PW1 (the victim) has stated
in her evidence that the accused Lal Mohammed
started committing rape upon her 2-3 times in a week,
and hence it was a continuing process of the offence,
which continued till the time when she went to the
clinic of Dr.Bhim Singh on 15.12.2012. The situation
became worst in December 2012 when she did not
have her menstruation cycle and she disclosed about
this to her father (the accused). Pursuant to this, her
father asked for her urine, which she gave to him, and
her father returned and told her that there was nothing
and handed over some paper slip to her. However, the
victim started remaining sick, and then she approached
to the doctor on 15.12.2012, and on the said day, she
disclosed about the incident to Dr.Bhim Singh, and
subsequently the matter was reported to the police.
Therefore, if the statement of PW1 (the victim) is

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 28 of 34
critically evaluated, it is found that the accused was
committing rape against the victim till December
2012. In view of the aforesaid discussions and as per
the history of the last intercourse which was one
month back, which was narrated to the doctor by the
victim at the time of her medical examination on
22.12.2012, it comes 22.11.2012, and at that time, the
POCSO Act 2012 was very much into effect,
therefore, the contentions of the Ld.Defence counsel
that the POCSO Act 2012 is not attracted in this case,
if liable to be rejected.”

36. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the finding of the Trial
Court, as the perusal of the above extracted findings clearly and
unequivocally lead to one inescapable conclusion that the argument
raised by the learned counsel of the appellant-accused that the
learned trial court erred in convicting the appellant-accused under the
POCSO act is without any force and is liable to be rejected.
Whether sentence should be reduced?

37. Rape is a heinous crime not only against the individual but also
against the society at large. The offences against the woman more
particularly sexual assault are increasing and if such an offence is
committed the same has to be dealt with stringently. It is necessary
for the courts to imbibe the legislative wisdom and to respect it
because rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual
but a crime, which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social
atmosphere, as it not only lowers the dignity of a woman but also
mars her reputation. The plight of a woman and the shock suffered
by the victim can be well visualized, as the victim of rape grows
with a traumatic experience and an unforgettable shame haunted

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 29 of 34
by the memory of the disaster forcing her to a state of terrifying
melancholia. The torment on the victim has the potentiality to
corrode the poise and equanimity of any civilized society. It has been
rightly said that whereas a murderer destroys the physical frame of a
victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. In
Lillu @ Rajesh Ors. Vs. State of Haryana : (2013) 14 SCC 643,
the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and
observed that :

“12. In State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh [(2004)
1 SCC 421 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 307 : AIR 2004 SC
1290] this court dealt with the issue and held that
rape is violative of the victim’s fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. So, the
courts should deal with such cases sternly and
severely. Sexual violence, apart from being a
dehumanising act, is an unlawful intrusion on the
right of privacy and sanctity of a woman. It is a
serious blow to her supreme honour and offends
her self-esteem and dignity as well. It degrades
and humiliates the victim and where the victim is
a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves
behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only
causes physical injuries, but leaves behind a scar
on the most cherished position of a woman i.e.
her dignity, honour, reputation and chastity.
Rape is not only an offence against the person of
a woman, rather a crime against the entire
society. It is a crime against basic human rights
and also violates the most cherished fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.”

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 30 of 34

38. Further, it is worthwhile to notice the observations of a coordinate
bench of this Court in Khem Chand Ors. v. State of Delhi reported
in 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1611 which while dealing with cases of
statutory rape of minor, had summarized the principles and the
factors which may be taken into consideration while assessing the
appropriate sentence. The relevant portion is as under:

“9. Before proceeding with the evaluation of the 12
appeals on merits, the principles and factors emerging
from Judicial pronouncements, which are relevant in
the matter of choice of sentence or reprieve in the
sentence awarded are enumerated below for facility
of reference. These are the factors which are, or may
be taken into account by the Court while assessing as
to what could be an appropriate sentence in a given
case.

i. Criminal and the crime are both important for
the purposes of sentence. Bachan Singh Vs. State
of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684.

ii. Manner of commission of the crime being
with meticulous planning or one on the spur of
the moment;

iii. Violence, If any, accompanying the crime
whether injuries suffered were serious and
required extensive treatment or have caused any
permanent damage to the child bearing capacity
or otherwise
iv. Whether the offender or accused was in a
position of fiduciary trust or exploited a social
or family relationship;

v. State of the victim, impact of the crime on the
victim,
vi. The antecedents of the accused, his age,
whether a first time offender or repeat offender,
possibility of recidivism.

vii. Social backwardness or offender being a

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 31 of 34
poor, illiterate labourer not found to be
adequate reason by Courts. (State of M.P Vs.
Munna Choubey anr. 2005(2) SCC 710 and
State of M.P Vs. Babbu Barkare @ Dalap Singh
(2005) 5 SCC 413.

viii. Passage of time since offence committed by
itself considered inadequate reasons for
reprieve. (Urmila (minor) Vs. Raju Anr.,
(2005) 12 scc 366.

ix. Rape victim’s marriage or rehabilitation
may be considered as a mitigating factor.
x. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions
Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006)
3 SCC 771, State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa
(2000) 4 SCC 75, Bantu @ Naresh Giri Vs. State
of M.P (2001) 9 SCC 615 and State of M.P Vs.
Santosh Kumar (2006) 6 SCC 1 where the
victims were below the age of 12 years and rape
had also been committed with some injuries,
has chosen to uphold the award of minimum
sentence.

10. One of us (Manmohan Sarin, J.) in Sheikh Falsar
Vs. State (Crl.A.154/2005) reduced the sentence from
life imprisonment to 10 years though the victim had
suffered tear of the hymen, second degree perennial
tear resulting in stitches being required for vagina,
following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa (supra) and
considering that accused was a first time offender
and this was a solitary offence, pleas of intoxication
or the accused belonging to the weaker section of the
society were not accepted. The Supreme Court in
State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa (supra) also noted
the rationale propounded by Kautilya of „just
punishment‟. Kautilya‟s philosophy was “whoever
imposes severe punishment becomes repulsive to
people while he who awards mild punishment

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 32 of 34
becomes contemptible. The ruler just with the rod is
honoured. When deserved punishment is given, it
endows the subjects with spiritual good, material well
being and pleasures of the senses.” This philosophy is
woven into our statute and our jurisprudence and it is
the duty of those who administer the law to bear this in
mind.

11. Accordingly, while determining the sentence in
appeals under consideration, we have considered the
aspects as noted above and in particular whether the
accused was a first time offender or a repeat offender,
whether offence was accompanied or committed with
violence, nature of injuries sustained, whether any
permanent physical damage caused, did it involve
betrayal of trust, possibility of recidivism i.e repeat
offending or there was possibility of rehabilitation/
readjustment within the community, post conviction
conduct of the accused displaying penitence or
propensity to crime are few of the factors which have
been considered. Cases where rape was committed
more than once or over sustained periods or cases
where there was no possibility of rehabilitation or
amalgamation or adjustment in society, have not
merited a reprieve in sentence.”

(emphasis supplied)
Conclusion

39. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view
that the testimony of the prosecutrix, which has remained un-
shattered and uncontroverted is creditworthy and reliable and has a
ring of truth in it and although there is no gainsaying in the legal
position that her testimony by itself is sufficient to establish the case
of the prosecution, in the present case; the prosecutrix testimony is
materially corroborated by the other evidence on record.

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 33 of 34

40. Further, let it not be forgotten that this is a case of rape on a girl
child, by her own father. Nothing can be more heinous than a crime
committed on a child by her own father, the one who is duty-bound
to provide her unflinching protection from all harm. Hence, we have
no hesitation in saying that we are not inclined towards reducing the
punishment of the appellant-accused and we also find no reasons to
take a different view than the view taken by the learned trial court.

41. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment passed by learned trial court and the conviction
of the appellant-accused/Lal Mohammed is upheld.

42. Accordingly, CRL.A No.1065/2018 being devoid of merit is
dismissed.

43. Copy of the order be communicated to the Trial Court as well as to
the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail.

44. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this
order.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

MANMOHAN, J.

JANUARY 24, 2020
gr

CRL.A. 1065/2018 Page 34 of 34

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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