LexMOHAN CHAND versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 498 A MOHAN CHAND v. STATE OF un ARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2009) B JANUARY 23, 2009. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.376 - Rape - Appeal against c conviction - Plea raised that the name of the accused was not stated in the FIR and, therefore, there was false implication and that the evidence was insufficient to establish accusations against him - Held: Accused was not personally known to the victim and therefore question of mentioning the name of the D accused in the FIR did not arise - Also, after arrest of the .. accused, he was put in Tl Parade and the victim correctly identified him - Evidence of the victim was clear and cogent - Conviction maintained. E The prosecution case was that PW4 was raped by the accused-appellant and other accused persons. Appellant was a truck driver. PWS, one of the accused, later on turned approver. The trial court found the evidence to be sufficient and convicted the appellant u/s.376 IPC with F rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. Before this Court, the conviction of appellant was challenged on the ground that his name was not stated In the FIR and therefore there was false Implication and G that the evidence was Insufficient to establish the accusations against him. Dismissing the appeal, the court H HELD:1. PW4 did not know the name of the appellant 498 ~ MOHAN CHAND v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 499 and, therefore, there was necessity for Test Identification A Parade. The evidence of PW4 is clear and cogent. In the instant case the appellant is not personally known to PW4 and therefore stating his name in the FIR did not arise. However, she has categorically stated that the rape was committed on her by the truck driver. After the arrest B of the appellant he was put in Tl Parade and PW4 had correctly identified him. That being so, the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Para 6) (503-A-C] CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal C No. 140 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.2008 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Na in ital in Crl. Appeal No. 852 of 2001. D Jitendra Kumar for the Appellant. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. E 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Uttarakhand at Nainital High Court finding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 of the F Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Two persons i.e. Khemanand and the present appellant filed the appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by· the impugned judgment. G 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 6.2.1985 the prosecutrix was sent by her mother to purchase rice from cheap grain shop. The prosecutrix waited there for sometimes in front of the shop. Ultimately, the H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A prosecutrix returned to her home without purchasing rice. When her mother saw her without rice and coming late at home, she scolded and admonished her. The prosecutrix was again sent to the cheap grain shop and she again found it closed. When the prosecutrix was in a sad and remorseful mood, the accused B Basant Ballabh (who died during the pendency of appeal) who was known to the prosecutrix came over there and inquired from her the reason for her remorse. The accused Basant Ballabh started to console her by saying that her mother was admonishing her everyday and suggested that they should run C away and marry at Purnagiri temple. The accused, Basant Ballabh also told her that his maternal uncle has a factory where he would get an employment and earn money and live comfortably. The accused Basant Ballabh took the prosecutrix to his room where they stayed throughout the night. The 0 accused Basant Ballabh promised her to marry on the next day in Purnagiri Temple. During the intervening night of 6th/7th February, 1985, accused Basant Ballabh committed rape on the prosecutrix thrice in the night. On the next day, the prosecutrix along with accused Basant Ballabh proceeded to the bus station Champawat The accused Basant Ballabh E asked the prosecutrix to go on foot 1 k.m. ahead
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.