IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of the Case. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 224 of 2006 Date of decision :- 1st July, 2008 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not approved for Reporting Initials of Judge Date: 01.07.2008 Note:- Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No. 224 of 2006 Rupesh Thapa S/o Dev Bahadur Thapa R/o Panchayti Mandir Near Prempur Mafi P.S. Cantt. Dehradun ..… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the respondent/State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in S.T.No. 113 of 2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under section 376 (2) (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo R.I. for one year. The appellant also convicted and sentenced for a period of five years u/s 366 I.P.C. It was further directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the informant Sanjay Gupta lodged a report in the police station Basant Vihar, Dehradun on 14/08/2005 at about 1915 hrs. alleging therein that on 14/08/2005 while he was in his shop someone informed him that his niece victim has been kidnapped by some unknown person at about 6:30 p.m. Immediately after receiving the information, the informant closed his shop; rushed to his house; and started search for his niece-victim. After thorough search, he located the victim in a bush lying near his house. He found that blood was oozing out from her private part of the person. Thereafter, he brought the victim to her house; prepared a report; and lodged the same in the police station. The victim was sent for medical examination and her medical was conducted on 14/08/2005 at 8:00 p.m. The case was also registered at the police station. The doctor who examined the victim found the age of the victim in between 6 to 8 years. The doctor further opined that the victim would have been subjected to rape at about 6:00 p.m. on 14/08/2005. It was also revealed that Bharat Malhotra PW4 had seen a person running from the place of incident from where the victim was recovered at about 6:30 p.m. and he could recognize the person by his appearance. The matter was investigated by the police. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement and prepared the sketch photograph of the accused/appellant which was circulated in the vicinity on 18/08/2005. On 03/09/2005 Bharat Malhotra PW4 spotted the accused/appellant near G.M.S. Road, Milan Vihar, Dehradun. After spotting the accused/appellant, he gave a call to his friend Chandresh Pandey and other persons to reach at the spot so that they could go behind the accused/appellant by concealing themselves. When his friend alongwith other persons reached at the spot, he asked them to follow the accused/appellant and he himself started going towards the police station to inform the police. But on the way, he met the police party and then all of them returned and chased the accused/appellant. Sensing the presence of the police and other persons, the accused/appellant tried to run away. Ultimately the accused/appellant was arrested by the police at Milan Vihar. Thereafter, the victim identified the accused/appellant at the spot on 03/0/2005. The investigation was started and after completing the investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the accused/appellant. 3. After submission of chargesheet, the accused/appellant was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charges against the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed his trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as six witnesses. Sanjay Gupta PW1 is the informant & uncle of the victim. After receiving the information, he started search of the victim and found her lying in a bush in lonely vacant place. Km. Mahima Gupta PW2 aged about 8 years is the victim and she has narrated the entire incident. The victim has identified the accused/appellant. Rakesh Chand Bhatt PW3 is the Head Constable who has prepared the Chick F.I.R. and made necessary entries in the G.D. Bharat Malhotra PW4 is the distributor of Cable T.V. and on the date of the occurrence he was near the plot in question and noticed that a person jumped out from the vacant land and thereafter he was adjusting his clothes. Dr. Alka Punetha PW5 is the Medical Officer who has examined the victim. Shri D.M. Sharma PW6 is the Investigating Officer who has submitted the chargesheet (Ex.Ka.8) after the investigation against the accused/appellant. 5. The accused/appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and he has pleaded not guilty to the offence. He has further stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. The accused in his defence appeared in the witness box and his statement was recorded as DW1. The accused also adduced Sonu Kaushal as DW2 to prove the fact that on the date of the incident he was not present at the place of the incident. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciation of the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as indicated above. 7. I have heard Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Amit Bhstt, learned Addl. G.A. for the respondent/State. 8. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that there is no dispute that the victim was subjected to forcible sexual assaults. The age of the victim at the time of the incident was in between 6 to 8 years. The prosecution in order to prove its case has adduced the evidence of Dr. Alka Punetha PW5 who has examined the victim. The relevant extract of the medical examination report (Ex.Ka.5) us under:- “Examined a small girl of 7 years. Mark of mouth bite present over left check. No other marks of injury present over the body. Auxiliary and public hair not present. Breast not developed. Local examination – Vagina full of blood, hymen torn, perennial tear of II degree present, vaginal smear taken and sent for histopathology, bleeding present, blood stains present upto soles” The doctor has opined that the victim might be subjected to forcible sexual intercourse at about 6:00 p.m. on 14/08/2005. The Medical Officer admitted the victim in the hospital and her torn vagina was stitched. The prosecution has also adduced the evidence of the victim as PW2 who has stated in her evidence that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse on 14/08/2005 at about 6:00 p.m. She has stated that the accused who was identified by her, took her to a nearby plot having sufficient bushes and asked her to put off her undergarment and thereafter committed rape upon her. Thus, it is amply established that the victim was subjected to forcible sexual assaults on the alleged date and time. 9. Now, I have to decide as to whether the accused/appellant has participated in the commission of the offence or not. The case rests on direct evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case examined victim as PW2 who was aged about 8 years at the time of the incident. The victim was produced before the Court and after preliminary examination; the court opined that the victim was a competent witness to gave her evidence. She has stated in her evidence that on 14th August, 2005, she was playing with her brother outside her house. The accused/appellant came there and asked her to accompany him. At the first instance, she resisted but later on her brother asked her to go with the accused/appellant. Thereafter, she went with the accused/appellant. When they reached near a vacant plot adjacent to her house, the accused/appellant put off her clothes and committed forcible sexual assaults with her. Thereafter, she became unconscious and regained her consciousness in the hospital. She has stated in her evidence as to how she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. 10. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of the informant Sanjay Gupta PW1 who is the uncle of the victim. He has stated in his evidence that on 14/08/2005 he received information by someone that his niece-victim has been kidnapped by an unknown person at about 6:00 p.m. After getting the information, the informant closed his shop, went to his home and started a thorough search of the victim. Ultimately, at about 6:30 p.m. he found the victim lying in the bush in lonely & vacant plot. He also found that blood was oozing from the vagina of the victim. Thereafter, the victim was taken to hospital where her medical treatment was conducted. The informant informed the police and thereafter lodged the report. He has further stated that Bharat Malhotra PW4 has informed him about the appearance of the accused/appellant. He has further stated that Bharat Malhotra PW4 had seen the accused/appellant jumping from the field at the relevant time. Thus, this witness has also proved the fact that immediately after the incident, the victim was spotted near the place of incident where Bharat Malhotra PW4 has spotted the accused/appellant. He had narrated the condition of the victim at the spot. 11. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of Bharat Malhotra PW4 who has stated in his evidence that he is the Cable Operator of the area and on the material date and time repair work of the cable was going on around the area in which the occurrence took place. He has further stated that on the date of the occurrence at about 6:00 to 6:30 p.m., he was present near the plot in question which was bounded by a wall and he had seen a person jumping out from the vacant land and thereafter adjusting his clothes. According to Bharat Malhotra PW4 he thought that the person might have been coming from natural call and so he would have been adjusting his clothes. Thereafter, the witness went to other places in connection with his work. When he was returning from other places, he found that a crowd has assembled near the place of incident. He made the enquiries there and found that an unknown person after kidnapping a minor girl committed rape upon her inside the plot. When he went to the house of the informant Sanjay Gupta, he found police personnel present there and he has stated that he had seen a person jumping from the vacant plot at the time of the incident. He has further stated that on 03/09/2005 at about 9:00 in the morning while he was going to attend his duties, he noticed the person who had jumped out from the field on that day near Milan Vihar. He immediately made a call to his friend Chandresh Pandey and asked him to reach the place where he was alongwith two and three persons waiting for him. When his friend reached there, he asked them to follow the accused/appellant and he himself went towards the police station. When he was on his way to the police station, he met with the police party and narrated the entire facts to them. Thereafter, he also accompanied the police party and apprehended the accused/appellant. He has further stated that the victim has identified the accused/appellant at the spot. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that it is well settled position of law that if the evidence of victim is found reliable, it does not require any corroboration on the material points. The prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. If the court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of victim is reliable and cogent, it does not need any further corroboration of any other independent and corroborative place of evidence. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a victim, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire phychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. Basically, it is a crime against basic human rights. Keeping in view of the aforesaid circumstances it must be expected from the court to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. 13. It is amply established by the evidence of Sanjay Gupta PW1 that the age of the victim was in between 6 to 8 years. Dr. Alka Punetha PW5 has also corroborated the above factum of the age of the girl. As far as age of the girl is concerned, it is amply proved by the prosecution witnesses that the victim was in between 6 to 8 years of age. There is no effective cross examination on this point. The witnesses remained consistent during their cross examination. The age of the girl was not disputed before me by the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant. I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court that the age of the victim was below 8 years at the time of the incident. 14. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused/appellant contended that the test identification parade was not conducted by the prosecution in this case. The identification before the Court is no identification in the eyes of law. It was further contended that the accused/appellant had not participated in the commission of the offence and he had been falsely implicated in this case. The learned Addl. G.A. supported the findings recorded by the trial court. It is true that no identification parade had been conducted by the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence or suggestion that there was any enmity of the accused/appellant with the parents of the victim or with the victim. If there is no enmity and ill-will against the accused/appellant why the prosecution witnesses would implicate the accused/appellant falsely in this case. There is no occasion to the complainant party or to the parents of the victim to get the culprit scot-free and implicate the other person who is innocent. Apart from this, the trial court has observed in the evidence of the victim PW2 as well as in the judgment that before recording the evidence of the victim, the learned Amicus Curiae moved an application that the accused/appellant should be separated from the other under- trials and police personnel should be directed to stand at reasonable distance so the accused/appellant was separated from other under trials and police personnel were also asked to stand at a sufficient distance. In these circumstances evidence of the victim was recorded and the victim identified the accused/appellant in the Court while giving her evidence. The victim identified the accused/appellant correctly in the court and the victim has stated that he was the culprit who has committed rape upon her. Thus, there is no doubt that the victim could not correctly identify the accused/appellant. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution that the accused/appellant came to her house when she was playing outside her house. The accused/appellant asked the victim to accompany him and thereafter, at the persistence of her brother she went with the accused/appellant. Thereafter, the accused/appellant put off her clothes and subjected the victim to forcible sexual assaults. Thus, the victim PW2 have got a petty long time to remember the physical appearance and special feature of the accused/appellant in her mind. The victim has identified the accused/appellant before the court on the basis of such memory. Merely because no test identification parade was held that is of no consequence. This plea has to be examined in the light of the evidence of the victim PW2 and Bharat Malhotra PW4. Both the witnesses i.e. victim PW2 and Bharat Malhotra PW4 are consistent during their cross examination. It is a settled position of law that substantive evidence is the evidence of the identification in the court. Apart from the clear provision of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, it is well settled position of law that the facts which establishes the identity of the accused/appellant are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Identification parade did not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification test conducted during the investigation can only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence in the Court. As a general rule the substantive evidence of the witness is the evidence made in the court. The purpose of prior test identification therefore is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of the substantive evidence. This is a rule of prudence and not of law. This rule of prudence is subjected to exceptions namely the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The weight to be attached to such identification should be ascertained form the facts of the each case. In this case, the victim was taken from her house; her clothes were put off; the accused/appellant also put off his clothes in presence of the victim and thereafter the victim was subjected to heinous offence. In fact on account of traumatic and tragic experience, the face of the accused/appellant must have got imprinted in the memory, and there was no chance of her making a mistake about the identify of the accused/appellant. It would be imprinted in the eyes and mind of the victim as to who had committed such a barbarous and tortures act upon her. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malkhansingh and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2003) 5 SCC p/746 has held in para 16 as under:- “16. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court and the test identification parade provides corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if required. However, what weight must be attached to the evidence of identification in court, which is not preceded by a test identification parade, is a matter for the courts of fact to examine. In the instant case the courts below have concurrently found the evidence of the prosecutrix to be reliable and, therefore, there was no need for the corroboration of her evidence in court as she was found to be implicitly reliable. We find no error in the reasoning of the courts below. From the facts of the case it is quite apparent that the prosecutrix did not even know the appellants and did not make any effort to falsely implicate them by naming them at any stage. The crime was perpetrated in broad daylight. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. This is not a case where the identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the appellants on a dark night. She also had a reason to remember their faces as they had committed a heinous offence and put her to shame. She had, therefore, abundant opportunity to notice their features. In fact on account of her traumatic and tragic experience, the faces of the appellants must have got imprinted in her memory, and there was no chance of her making a mistake about their identity. The occurrence took place on 4-3-1992 and she deposed in court on 27-8-1992. The prosecutrix appears to be a witness on whom implicit reliance can be placed and there is no reason why she should falsely identify the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime if they had not actually committed the offence. In these circumstances if the courts below have concurrently held that the identification of the appellants by the prosecutrix in court does not require further corroboration, we find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the courts below after an appreciation of the evidence on record.” The above proposition of law has also been laid down in the cases of Munshi Singh Gautam (dead) and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2005) 9 SCC p/631 and Md. Kalam @ abdul Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008 (2) Supreme p/519. Apart from the above, the victim has identified the accused/appellant at the spot also. Bharat Malhotra PW4 who had also seen the accused/appellant jumping from the vacant plot and identified him. With the help of Bharat Malhotra PW4 the accused/appellant was arrested on 03/09/2005. The evidence of Bharat Malhotra PW4 is credible and cogent. Nothing could be elicited from his cross examination to discredit his testimony during cross examination. Thus, the participation of the accused/appellant in the commission of the offence is established by the evidence. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. 15. The learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the accused/appellant was not arrested on 03/09/2005 as alleged by the prosecution. It was contended that the accused/appellant was arrested much prior to 03/09/2005 and he was kept illegally in police custody till 03/09/2005. The learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention and contended that the arrest of the accused/appellant has not been challenged during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The accused/appellant has neither challenged his arrest nor narrated the story of being harassed nor his arrest on 27/08/2005. It is true that there is no cross examination to the Investigation Officer or even a suggestion to the Investigating Officer that the accused/appellant was not arrested on 03/09/2005 but he was arrested on 27/08/2005. The accused/appellant has not stated the above fact in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He at the first instance stated this fact when he appeared before the Court as a defence witness. The evidence of Bharat Malhotra PW4 is credible and cogent that the accused/appellant was arrested on 03/09/2005. The documents adduced by the prosecution in evidence are credible and cogent with regard to the arrest of the accused/appellant on 03/09/2005. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the accused/appellant was not present at the place of the occurrence on the alleged date and time of the incident. It was further contended that the accused/appellant was out of station on the date of incident. The learned Addl. G.A. refuted the contention. The defence has examined the accused/appellant as DW1. He has stated in his evidence that he worked as a driver with the travel agency and has been driving the taxi for the last 12-13 years. On 14/08/2005, he had taken an Indica taxi from Dehradun to Hardwar. He returned at about 9:00 p.m. and thereafter went to his house. During cross examination, he was cross examined he has stated that the taxi which he took to Haridwar was booked by Sonu Kaushal and the tax belonged to Square Tour and Travels. He has