Delhi High Court
Uma Shankar vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 3 February, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 03, 2015
+ CRL.A.180/2010
UMA SHANKAR
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 16.07.2009 in
Sessions Case No.09/08 arising out of FIR No.118/08 registered at Police
Station Vivek Vihar by which the appellant Uma Shankar was convicted
under Section 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 16.07.2009, he was
awarded RI for ten years with fine `5,000/- under Section 376 IPC and RI
for one year under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate
concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the charge-
sheet were that before 03.06.2008 for about two months he sexually
assaulted prosecutrix 'X' her own daughter aged 12 years at House
No.28/54, Kasturba Nagar, Shahdara. The prosecutrix and her mother
approached PW-4 (Asha) and PW-6 (Preeti) running an organization
under the name of 'Aaj and Lady Help Mahila Panchayat' recognized by
Delhi Mahila Ayog and they assisted them to lodge First Information
Report. After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/1), the Investigating
Officer recorded FIR under Section 376/506 IPC. 'X' was medically
examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The
appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was laid before the court. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to
establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, denying his involvement
in the crime, he alleged that due to a quarrel between him and his wife
over coming her late, he was falsely implicated. He did not prefer to
examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as
aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been
preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that there
was nothing much to argue as the prosecutrix had not deviated from her
previous statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. No
ulterior motive was assigned to the prosecutrix 'X' who gathered courage
to report the matter to the police and deposed against her own father. In
her statement (Ex.PW-1/1) given to the police at first instance, the
appellant was specifically named for the crime. She gave detailed account
as to how and under what circumstances she was ravished by her father on
various dates after putting her in fear and under threat. When her mother
inquired from her as to why she used to remain in fear, she divulged the
whole incident to her. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she reiterated her version
and implicated the appellant for sexual assault. In her statement before
court as PW-1, she proved the version given to the police without any
variation. Her statement remained unchallenged and uncontroverted in
the cross-examination. No suggestion was put to her if the appellant had
not indulged in any such sexual activity. No suggestion was put to her if
he was falsely implicated due to a quarrel with his wife over coming late
in the house. The child witness had no extraneous consideration to rope in
her own father. Her testimony inspires implicit confidence and there are
no sound reasons to disbelieve her in the absence of any material
discrepancies. PW-2 (Smt.Durga Wati), her mother, has also corroborated
her version on material aspects. When she inquired from 'X' as to why
she used to remain depressed, she took her to PWs- 4 and 6 after 'X'
disclosed her about the obnoxious act of her father. Testimony of PWs-4
and 6 is also on similar lines.
4. Ocular testimony of the prosecutrix is in consonance with
medical evidence. In MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) her hymen was found torn
indicating that she was subjected to rape. In the alleged history recorded
therein, it was specifically informed by 'X' that her father used to commit
rape upon her person. She narrated that her father committed rape seven
times on her person in the last two months and the last incidence of rape
occurred on 28.05.2008.
5. In 313 statement the appellant did not give plausible
explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against him. He
did not give any instance when a quarrel had taken place with his wife
over late coming. Moreover for that trivial issue, a mother is not expected
to put the honour of her own young daughter at stake to implicate her own
husband. The findings of the trial court based upon fair appraisal of the
evidence require no intervention.
6. Regarding sentence order, the appellant was sentenced to
undergo RI for ten years with fine `5,000. Instead of protecting her
daughter from the evil eyes of others, the appellant betrayed her trust and
ravished her repeatedly inside the house to gratify his passions. She was
not safe even in her house. He deserves no leniency. Default sentence for
non-payment of `5,000/- awarded to the appellant i.e.SI for one year,
however, requires modification and it is reduced to SI for 15 days.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Copy of
this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and
necessary action. Trial court record be sent back along with copy of this
order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 03, 2015
sa
