Punjab & Haryana High Court acquits two men held guilty by trial court for gangrape

  • | Friday | 21st September, 2018

With the High Court setting aside that part of the verdict, the duo will only face an imprisonment of 10 years under the remaining charges now. The High Court has upheld the conviction of the two men from Haryana’s Fatehabad under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping the minor. (File photo) The High Court has upheld the conviction of the two men from Haryana’s Fatehabad under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping the minor. However, the High Court has upheld the conviction of the two men from Haryana’s Fatehabad under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping the minor. (File photo)Stating that “finding of human semen cannot be linked to the offence of rape”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted two men — earlier convicted by a trial court in 2013 — of gangrape of an 11-year-old, rejecting both the forensic evidence and doctor’s opinion in the case.

The High Court has upheld the conviction of the two men from Haryana’s Fatehabad under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping the minor. (File photo) The High Court has upheld the conviction of the two men from Haryana’s Fatehabad under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping the minor. (File photo) Stating that “finding of human semen cannot be linked to the offence of rape”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted two men — earlier convicted by a trial court in 2013 — of gangrape of an 11-year-old, rejecting both the forensic evidence and doctor’s opinion in the case. “We do not think that necessarily finding of human semen can be linked to the alleged offence of rape, particularly because the prosecutrix did not allege the commission of rape after 02.09.2012 after she was kidnapped from house,” observed the HC. However, the High Court has upheld the conviction of the two men from Haryana’s Fatehabad under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping the minor. The two had been sentenced to life imprisonment for gangrape by a trial court in 2013. With the High Court setting aside that part of the verdict, the duo will only face an imprisonment of 10 years under the remaining charges now. The grandmother of the minor on September 5, 2012, had lodged a complaint that she was “enticed away” on September 2 by the accused. The victim, who was a student of Class V then, was produced before the police on September 6 and got examined medico-legally. In her statement, a day later, she told the Chief Judicial Magistrate that she was given some intoxicant by the accused and raped. She was taken to some dera after that from where she was brought back to her home by the “baba” of the dera. While the HC has upheld the trial court’s verdict on forceful kidnapping and age of the victim, the division bench of Justices A B Chaudhari and B S Walia, in the judgement on the aspect of gangrape, has said that it is aware that the rape with a minor is a serious matter, but her evidence has to be corroborated with the medical evidence. The state, in its case, had argued that a vaginal swab, which had been sent for examination, indicated that there was a presence of human semen and therefore “inference” must be drawn that the rape had taken place. “The finding of sperms in vagina swab in the FSL report is also doubtful in the sense that rape is said to have been committed on 02.09.2012 and the swab is said to have been obtained on 06.09.2012,” the division bench has said in the order. “We, therefore, find that the benefit of doubt in respect of the charge regarding gang-rape will have to be given to the appellants,” it has said. The doctor, on examination of the victim, had said in the report, “Hymen is not intact and admits only one finger. There is pain during manipulation.” During her cross-examination, the doctor had said that there were no injury marks on the victim and given an opinion, “If an unchasted (sic) girl is forcibly raped by any person then injury on the labia majora and labia minora can be happened (sic), but it is not a rule.” While commenting on the doctor’s report, the division bench has said, “In the wake of the report that there was no injury over labia majora and labia minora, though, three persons are said to have committed rape on the prosecutrix, we have serious doubt about the commission of rape even penetration.” Regarding the doctor’s opinion, the division bench has said, “Her explanation that it is not the rule, does not appeal to us, particularly in the light of report that even upon insertion of one finger, there was pain. We, therefore, find that there was neither any penetration nor rape committed by any of the persons on the prosecutrix.” For all the latest Chandigarh News, download Indian Express App

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Chandigarh Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles