Delhi High Court
Rajneesh vs State on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 10.12.2024
% Pronounced on: 22.01.2025
+ CRL. A. 304/2009
RAJNEESH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. G.S. Sharma, Mr. V.K. Sharma,
Mr. R.A. Sharma, Mr. Akhilesh and
Mr. Arvind Nagar, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with
Inspector Dinesh Chandra.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgement of conviction
dated 07.03.2009 and order on sentence dated 09.03.2009 passed by learned
ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 99/2008 arising
out of FIR No.533/2007 registered under Sections 363/366/376/328 IPC at
P.S. Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
Vide the impugned judgement, the appellant was convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 328/366/376/363 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL. A. 304/2009 Page 1 of 6
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
12:32:21
punishable under Section 363 IPC with a fine of Rs 2000/- in default
whereof, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3
months. For the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, the appellant
was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine
for Rs. 5000/, in default where of he is directed to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment of 6 months. With respect to the offence of section 328 of IPC
the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years
along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default where of he was directed to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. Lastly, for the offence
under Section 376 IPC, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs 10,000/-, in default whereof, he
was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The said
sentences were directed to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428
Cr.P.C was also extended to the applicant.
2. The facts, as noted by the Trial Court, are as under:-
‘Kanchan (name changed) went missing, since 7 AM of 19.11.07. She left
for her school in morning hours that day. When she did not return home,
her father Ramesh lodged a missing report with the Police. He raised an
accusing finger against accused, Rajneesh, who was residing in his
neighbourhood and missing too from his house. On 29.11.07, Kanchan
reached her house after consumption of some intoxicant. She was taken
to hospital, where gastive lavage was got done. Thereafter, Roopwati,
mother of Prosecutrix, brought Kanchan to PS, where her statement was
recorded. Kanchan was taken to a magistrate, who recorded her
statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short the Code). During the course of investigation, accused Rajneesh
was arrested. Both Kanchan and Rajneesh were medically examined.
Investigation culminated into a chargesheet against the accused.’
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution
examined a total of 12 witnesses to prove its case. The victim was examined
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL. A. 304/2009 Page 2 of 6
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
12:32:21
as PW3. Dr. Sapna was examined as PW9 to prove the MLC of the
prosecutrix. As per case of prosecution, the prosecutrix was 14 and ½ years
of age at the time of incident and to prove the same examined PW4, a
teacher of the School attended by the prosecutrix. The other witnesses were
formal in nature relating to various aspects of investigation.
The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
claimed innocence and stated the Prosecutrix has deposed against the
appellant under the pressure of her parents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the cross examination of
PW1 as well as PW2 to contend that the prosecutrix was a major at the time
of occurrence of the alleged offence. It was further submitted that a perusal
of the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, her court
deposition and the MLC would show that she was a consenting party and as
such, no offence under Section 376 is made out against the appellant. In this
regard, reference was also made to the diary exhibited as Ex. D-1 and letters
exhibited as Ex. D-2 to D-5 that were written by the prosecutrix to the
appellant expressing her love towards him. It is lastly submitted that the
testimonies of witnesses do not inspire confidence being full of material
improvements and that the impugned judgement has been passed on the
basis of surmises and conjectures.
5. Learned APP for the State while opposing the present appeal
defended the impugned judgment and emphasized that the appellant was
rightly convicted in light of the material that came on record.
6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties as well as perused the
material placed on record.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL. A. 304/2009 Page 3 of 6
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
12:32:21
7. A reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix would show that on
19.11.2007, she met the appellant near her school and thereafter
accompanied him to Haryana where she resided with him for 9 days. The
prosecutrix further deposed that during this stay, the appellant had
established sexual relations with her consent and that they were living as
husband and wife. The appellant has contended that the prosecutrix even at
the time of recording of her MLC as well as statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C stated that she went with the appellant on her own wish.
The primary issue that requires consideration is whether the
prosecution has conclusively proved that the prosecutrix was a minor at the
time of the offence and could not be deemed to have comprehended the
consequences of her actions.
8. To prove the age of prosecutrix, the prosecution has relied on the oral
evidence in the form of testimonies of the prosecutrix and her parents as
well as her school records. In this regard, the prosecution examined one
Anand Mittal (PW-4), a teacher at the school that was attended by the
prosecutrix. A perusal of his testimony would show that the prosecutrix’s
name was registered at Sl. No. 4824 in the school admissions register and
her date of birth was recorded as 10.05.1993. The witness further deposed
that the prosecutrix was admitted in the said school in the 4th standard on
25.07.2002 and the date of birth in the admission register was recorded on
the basis of an affidavit furnished by her parents. The admissions register
was exhibited as Ex PW4/A.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has only sought to create doubt on
the prosecutrix’ age by referring to the random parts of parents’ deposition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL. A. 304/2009 Page 4 of 6
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
12:32:21
It was submitted that the prosecutrix’s parents deposed that they were
married about 20 years ago, the prosecutrix was their eldest child and was
born after 2.5 years of their marriage the age of the prosecutrix. In this
backdrop, learned counsel contended that it can be inferred that the
prosecutrix was above 18 years as the said depositions were recorded after
one year of the incident. Pertinently, the authenticity of the aforementioned
school admission register was not challenged in as much as no suggestion
was put to the witness if the same was prepared afterwards or manipulated in
any manner. In fact, no such suggestion doubting the correctness of
prosecutrix’ age in school record was put either to her or the parents. Even if
a calculation is made in terms of appellant’s contentions, the prosecutrix still
remains a minor on the date of incident.
10. This Court finds no merit in appellant’s aforenoted contentions to
doubt the authenticity or correctness of the school admission register
especially when no such challenge was raised at the time of recording of the
testimonies of relevant witnesses during the trial. Even in provisions under
the JJ (Care and Protection of Children) Act and the Rules framed
thereunder give primacy to the school certificate. Besides, the courts have
repeatedly accepted the school admission register as a proof of the age of the
prosecutrix. [cf: Farid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr in Crl.A.
8359/2023 dated 23.01.2024, Ram Prasad v. State of Maharashtra, reported
as 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1315 and Surjeet Kumar v. State, reported as
2023 SCC OnLine Del 215.]
11. In the backdrop of facts and evidence that have come on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of prosecutrix and her
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL. A. 304/2009 Page 5 of 6
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
12:32:21
parents are reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution has been able to prove
that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was only 14.5 years of age and
as such her consent, if any, was immaterial. Having held so, the Court finds
no reason to interfere with the appellant’s conviction and sentence, which
are upheld.
12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
13. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court as well as
to the Jail Superintendent for information.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 22, 2025/jjp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL. A. 304/2009 Page 6 of 6
By:GAUTAM ASWAL
Signing Date:23.01.2025
12:32:21
[ad_1]
Source link