Blog

The high court of Uttarakhand passed a judgement on 22^nd September 2022 in the case Deewan singh Kalu v. state of Uttarakhand (Criminal Jail Appeal No. 9 of 2017) this case was presided over by Honourable Justice Mr. Ravindra Maithani.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 23.01.2016, the appellant enticed the victim, a baby boy of three years and took him in his room. The appellant there had anal intercourse against the order of the nature with the victim. The victim cried. PW3 Geeta Devi heard the cries of the victim. She informed about it to the mother of the victim. PW4 the mother of the victim reached at the house of the appellant. She found that in a room, the victim was crying and there was blood on his pyjamas. The victim narrated the incident to his mother. The victim was taken to the hospital. He was referred to the District Hospital, where he was treated upon. When the condition of the victim slightly improved, a report of the incident was lodged on 27.01.2016, by his father. Based on it, a Case Crime No. 01 of 2016, under Section 377 IPC and Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was lodged against the appellant. Investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan; took into custody the pyjamas of the victim and forwarded it for forensic examination. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 377 IPC and Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

On 11.03.2016, charge under Section 377 IPC and Section 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the Act was framed against the appellant. To which, he denied and claimed trial. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.

After prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the appellant, he has been falsely implicated. He is innocent. He has not committed any offence. He has been wrongly arrested. By the judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, and the appeal was preferred.

JUDGEMENT

It is true that according to PW1 the father of the victim, he has also revealed the incident to the labourers, who were working on his construction site and it is also true that none of them has been examined in the court. But, it may not lead to any adverse inference. The evidence of a relative witness is not a weak kind of evidence. It is always the truthfulness, credibility and reliability of the witness, which matters. The number of witnesses is also insignificant. In fact, in such cases, the sole testimony of a victim, if found reliable, may lead to conviction. Therefore, this Court is of the view that non- examination of the workers also does not create any doubt in the prosecution case.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge levelled against the appellant. The court below did not commit any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

Click here to view the judgement

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANANTH PAI