Rape and murder of 11-year-old girl and Evidence Analysis

Image sourece: Google- Original Souces failed

Deceased, aged about 11 yrs, had gone alone from her house to prepare cow dung cakes – Respondent-accused forcibly took her into wheat filed with bad intentions – She raised cries and on hearing the same, PWs 2 and 3, who were passing by at a short distance, came to said filed and saw respondent strangulating deceased with a dupatta – On seeing them, respondent ran away and when they tried to chase him, he could not be caught – Trial Judge convicted respondent and sentenced him to death – High Court allowed appeal and acquitted respondent and rejected capital sentence reference – High Court disbelieved statement of independent eyewitnesses, PWs 2 and 3 on ground of contradictions between statements made under S. 161 CrPC and their evidence before court and delay in lodging of FIR – Respondent further submitted that non-recovery of chunni (dupatta i.e. a kind of stole), which was alleged to have been used for strangulating victim was fatal to prosecution case – Held, PWs 2 and 3 are not related to deceased, and are independent eyewitnesses who actually witnessed occurrence – Alleged contradictions are trivial in nature and  have not affected prosecution case, which is also supported by medical evidence – Analysis and ultimate conclusion of High Court is contrary to acceptable and reliable material placed on record by prosecution – Accused first committed offence of rape and then murdered the deceased – Sentence of RI for life, imposed – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 374 and 161.

 B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 154 – FIR – Delay in FIR – If reasonably explained – Occurrence at 4.30 p.m. – FIR LODGED AT 11.05 P.M. – Rape and murder of 11-year-old minor girl in village – Father of victim (PW 1), a village, on hearing of incident through PWs 2 and 3 (who had been passing by), rushed to spot, made arrangements to cover body of his daughter, tried for some time to trace accused, and thereafter, reached police station which was at a distance of 2 km – Held, it cannot be construed that there was any unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes to root of prosecution case – Delay has been properly explained by PW 1 – Even otherwise delay cannot be said to be abnormal as erroneously observed by High Court – Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 376 and 302.

 C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 154 – FIR – All details as spoken to by PWs 1, 2 and 3 were not mentioned in FIR – Held, trial court rightly observed that FIR need not be encyclopaedic – It is just an intimation of occurrence of an incident and it need not contain all facts related to said incident. 

D. Criminal Trial – Investigation – Defective or illegal investigation – Effect of – Death caused by strangulation – Prosecution failed to recover chunni (dupatta) which was alleged to have been used for strangulating victim but, remaining material objects, evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of doctor (PW 4) who conducted post-mortem, his opinion, etc. amply prove prosecution case – Hence, claim of respondent regarding defect in prosecution evidence, rejected – Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 376 and 302 – Rape and murder. 

E. Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 376 and 302 – Rape and murder of minor – Medical evidence – Appreciation of – Absence of report of Sperm Detection Test – Effect of – Cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation and also ante-mortem injuries – Conclusion of PW 4 (doctor) fully supported prosecution case that deceased was raped before strangulation – Blood was seen in vagina of deceased – Held, in absence of abovesaid report, prosecution case cannot be doubted about rape, particularly, in the light of categorical findings of PW 4 that murdered victim’s hymen was found to have been ruptured – Other prosecution witnesses also stated about injuries on her private parts and oozing of blood – Medical evidence proved that victim was raped before her death and she dies on 5-3-2002 – Prosecution story is fully corroborated with medical evidence on record – High Court failed to give importance to said evidence. 

F. Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302 and 376 – Rape and murder of 11-year-old girl – Conviction restored – Sentence – Incident occurred in year 2002 – Trial court imposed death – High Court acquitted respondent – Held, rigorous imprisonment for life would meet ends of justice.

 G. Crimes Against Women and Children – Rape – Primary concern both at national and international level is about devastating increase in rape cases and cases relating to crimes against women – India is no exception to it – Although statutory provisions provide strict penal action against such offenders, it is for courts to ultimately decide whether such incident has occurred or not – Courts should be more cautious in appreciating evidence and accused should not be left scot-free merely on flimsy grounds – In present case, accused had committed rape which repels moral conscience as he chose a girl of 11 yrs to satisfy his lust and subsequently murdered her – Penal Code, 1860, S. 376.

(Refer Case (2012) 9  Supreme Court Cases 742 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs MUNESH Compiled by Tamil Nadu Judicial Acadmy)