LexLILLU @ RAJESH & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 2 S.C.R. 774 A LILLU @ RAJESH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1226 of 2011) B APRIL 11, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c ss. 376, 506, 366 and 363 - Kidnapping and rape of a girl of 13 years - Conviction of four accused by courts below - Appeal by two convicts - One died pending appeal - Held: On the date of incident, victim was of 13 years and 9 months D and was a student of 6th standard - To refute the same, no evidence has been led by accused-appellant - The said finding stood affirmed by High Court and in view thereof, it remains totally immaterial whether the prosecutrix was a . ' consenting party or not - The case does not present special E features warranting any interference. CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN: Rape victim - Entitlement to legal recourse - Held: In view of International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural F Rights 1966; United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power 1985, rape survivors are entitled to legal recourse that does not retraumatize them or violate their physical or mental integrity and dignity - Medical procedures should not be carried out G in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and health should be of paramount consideration while dealing with gender-based violence - State is under an obligation to make such services available to survivors of sexual violence - Proper measures should be taken to ensure H 774 LILLU @ RAJESH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 775 their safety and there should be no arbitrary or unlawful A interference with victim's privacy - There is a demand of sound standard of conducting and interpreting forensic examination of rape survivors - International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1966; United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime B and Abuse of Power 1985. Narayanamma (Kum) v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799 = (1994) 5 sec 728; State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus & Anr., 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 585 = AIR 2005 SC 1248; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Munshi, 2008 (12) C SCR 897 = AIR 2009 SC 370; Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (6) SCR 148 =AIR 2012 SC 2281 and State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 995 = AIR 2004 SC 1290 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 799 referred to para 8 · 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 585 referred to para 9 2008 (12) SCR 897 referred to para 9 2012 (6) SCR 148 referred to para 10 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 995 referred to para 11 D E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal F No. 1226 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 243-DB of 2002. G J.P. Singh, R.C. Kaushik for the Appellants. Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered H A 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. ORDER 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal B Appeal No. 243-DB of 2002, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 4.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2001, by way of which the appellant no. 1 has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 " (hereinaftP.r referred to as 'IPC') and awarded the sentence of '""' seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of making payment, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. Further he has been convicted under Section 506 I PC and awarded the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed D to run concurrently. The other co-accused, namely, Manoj, Satish @ Sitta and Kuldeep have been convicted separately under sections 376, 506, 366 and 363 IPC. Kuldeep Singh alone has been found guilty under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC, and has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment. Out of these E four convicts, Kuldeep Singh and Manoj did not prefer any appeal against the High Court's judgment, while appellant nos.1 and 2 preferred the present appeal. Appellant no.2 had died during the pendency of this appeal in jail, therefore, we are . concerned only with the case of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.