LexSTATE OF U.P. versus CHHOTEYLAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 406 A STATE OF U.P. v. CHHOTEYLAL (Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 2006) B JANUARY 14 , 2011 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860 : c ss. 363, 366, 368 and 376 - Kidnapping, wrongful confinement and rape -Conviction by trial court with 7 years R.I. - Acquittal by High Court -Held: Prosecutrix being less than 18 years of age, was removed from the lawful custody of her brother and was taken to a city by ~o adult males under D threat and kept in a room for many days where one of the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with ho/ - The High Court was not at all justified in taking a different view from the trial court - High Court has dealt with the matter with casual approach and its judgment is not only cryptic and perfunctory E but it has also not taken into consideration the crucial evidence on record - Rape is a heinous crime, and once it is established, justice must be done to the victim of crime by awarding suitable punishment to the accused - Judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored - Evidence ;y- - Sentence/sentencing F s. 90 and s.375, Clauses 'Firstly' and 'Secondly' - Rape - Expressions 'against her will' and 'without her consent' - Explained - Held: The concept of consent in the context of s. 375 has to be read with s. 90. G s.375, Clause 'Sixthly' -Held: Prosecutrix at the relevant time being about 17 ~years of age, Clause 'Sixthly' would ~ not be applicable. H 406 STATE OF U.P. v. CHHOTEYLAL 407 ,..( EVIDENCE: A Age of prosecutrix - Medical evidence and oral testimony - The evidence ofprosecutrix and her elder brother stating her age as 13 years at the relevant time -Medical evidence indicating her age as 17 years - Held : The trial court on B consideration of evidence on record rightly recorded a categorical finding that the prosecutrix was about 17 ~ years of age at the time of occurrence - It cannot be said that best evidence has been withheld - There is no rule, much less an absolute rule that two years have to be added to the age c determined by the doctor - High Court fell in grave error in observing that prosecutrix could be even 19 years of age at the time of occurrence. Evidence of the victim of rape - Held : A victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime - Her evidence is D similar to that of an injured complainant or witness - The testimony of prosecutrix, if found reliable, by itself may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary - Court must be sensitive and responsive to the plight of such victim of sexual assault. E F.l.R. - Delay in registration of-A village girl kidnapped """'(, from her village and taken to city - FIR registered after 10 days - Held: The brother has given a plausible explanation - The delay in registration of the FIR has been reasonably, F explained - Delay/Laches. ADMINISTRATION 0F CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Criminal justice - Criminal cases relating to offences ~ against the State, corruption, dowry death, domestic violence, G sexual assault, financial fraud and cyber crimes - Need to be fast tracked - Immediate and urgent steps required to be taken in amending the procedural and other laws - The investigators need to have professional orientation and modem tools - Police reforms.as directed in Prakash Singh's H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A case1 suggested to be carried out. The respondent (A-1) along with two others (A-2 and A-3) kidnapped the prosecutrix from the fields of her village on 19.9.1989. A-3, the woman accomplice, 8 accompanied them up to the road. Thereafter A-1 and A- 2 took the prosecutrix to a city and was kept in a rented room for few days, where she was ravished by A-1. Meanwhile P. W.1, the elder brother of the prosecutrix, made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on C 28.9.1989 that A-1 to A-3 had kidnapped her. The FIR was registered the following day and the prosecutrix was recovered on 13.10.1989. She was medically examined the same day. Her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate on 17.10.1989. A-1 was charged with for offences punishable u/ss 363, 366, 368 D and 376 IPC, A-2 u/ss 363, 366 and 368 IPC and A-2 u/ss 363 and 366 IPC. On the basis of the medical evidence, the trial court recorded the age of the prosecutrix about 17-112 years. A-2 died during the trial. The trial court acquitted A-3. A-1 was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.