# Sohan Pal (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1231
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5101 of 2006
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sohan-pal-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45962
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section
376,
Section
307-
From
the
evidence led by the prosecution which
includes the testimony of prosecutrix/victim
'A'
P.W.3
along
with
her
medical
examination report and the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 goes to show that the
appellant had committed rape on the victim,
who is a minor girl and when she stated to
complain about the incident to her mother,
the accused with an intention to kill her,
assaulted on neck with a scissor, causing
grievous injuries to her, for which she was
operated at Medical College, Meerut and
remained in hospital for about a month and
also admitted in AIIMS, New Delhi, after her
surgery in the medical college, Meerut- The
appellant who was taken on police remand
got the bloodstained scissor recovered from
the place where he has concealed the same
of the incident.

The testimony of the victim, who is a child, is
corroborated by the medical evidence and the
testimony of the witnesses of fact as well as the
recovery of the incriminating weapon with which
the appellant had attempted to murder her, fully
establish the case of the prosecution.

Quantum
of
sentence-

The
prosecutrix/victim because of the injury
inflicted by the appellant on her neck, lost
her power to speak after the incident which
goes to show that the appellant has
committed a heinous crime of rape and also
made
an
attempt
to
murder
the
prosecutrix/victim after committing rape
on her, hence the incarceration of the
appellant for 17 years in jail, as has been
argued by learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be sympathetically weighed in
comparison to the barbaric act of the
appellant on the prosecutrix/victim, who is
also an injured witness in the present case
against the appellant- In cases of rape
while considering the question of sentence,
the Court has to strike balance between
reformative
theory
and
principle
of
proportionality- The sentence awarded to
the appellant by the trial Court for the
offences under section 376 IPC and under
section 307 IPC for life imprisonment,
respectively is perfectly justified in the
instant case, as it shocks the conscience of
the society and the Courts must hear the
loud cry for justice by the society in cases
of rape of innocent helpless girls of ten
years
and
respond
by
imposition
of
sentence. To show mercy in the case of
such heinous crime, could be travesty of
justice and the plea of leniency is wholly
misplaced.

It is settled law that a duty is cast upon the
courts to strike a balance between the
reformative
theory and the principle
of
proportionality. Where the offence is heinous
and
barbaric
and
shocks
the
collective
conscience of the society, then there is no
need for the Court to interfere with the
quantum of punishment awarded by the trial
court.
1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2) (Para 23, 25,
26, 28)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,983 of 54,156. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39983 for what follows._

1 All. Sohan Pal Vs. State of U.P.
1231

58. The concerned Court /Authority
/Official shall verify the authenticity of the
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1231
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5101 of 2006

Sohan Pal ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Dinesh Kumar(A.C.), Sri Apul Misra, Sri
Dinesh Chandra Mishra, Sri K.K. Mishra, Sri
Noor Mohammad, Sri S.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section
376,
Section
307-
From
the
evidence led by the prosecution which
includes the testimony of prosecutrix/victim
'A'
P.W.3
along
with
her
medical
examination report and the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 goes to show that the
appellant had committed rape on the victim,
who is a minor girl and when she stated to
complain about the incident to her mother,
the accused with an intention to kill her,
assaulted on neck with a scissor, causing
grievous injuries to her, for which she was
operated at Medical College, Meerut and
remained in hospital for about a month and
also admitted in AIIMS, New Delhi, after her
surgery in the medical college, Meerut- The
appellant who was taken on police remand
got the bloodstained scissor recovered from
the place where he has concealed the same
of the incident.

The testimony of the victim, who is a child, is
corroborated by the medical evidence and the
testimony of the witnesses of fact as well as the
recovery of the incriminating weapon with which
the appellant had attempted to murder her, fully
establish the case of the prosecution.

Quantum
of
sentence-

The
prosecutrix/victim because of the injury
inflicted by the appellant on her neck, lost
her power to speak after the incident which
goes to show that the appellant has
committed a heinous crime of rape and also
made
an
attempt
to
murder
the
prosecutrix/victim after committing rape
on her, hence the incarceration of the
appellant for 17 years in jail, as has been
argued by learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be sympathetically weighed in
comparison to the barbaric act of the
appellant on the prosecutrix/victim, who is
also an injured witness in the present case
against the appellant- In cases of rape
while considering the question of sentence,
the Court has to strike balance between
reformative
theory
and
principle
of
proportionality- The sentence awarded to
the appellant by the trial Court for the
offences under section 376 IPC and under
section 307 IPC for life imprisonment,
respectively is perfectly justified in the
instant case, as it shocks the conscience of
the society and the Courts must hear the
loud cry for justice by the society in cases
of rape of innocent helpless girls of ten
years
and
respond
by
imposition
of
sentence. To show mercy in the case of
such heinous crime, could be travesty of
justice and the plea of leniency is wholly
misplaced.

It is settled law that a duty is cast upon the
courts to strike a balance between the
reformative
theory and the principle
of
proportionality. Where the offence is heinous
and
barbaric
and
shocks
the
collective
conscience of the society, then there is no
need for the Court to interfere with the
quantum of punishment awarded by the trial
court.
1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2) (Para 23, 25,
26, 28)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon: -

1. AIR 2013 SC 2209 Shyam Narain Vs St. of
NCT of Delhi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The present appeal has been filed by
the appellant against the judgment and order
dated 27.7.2006 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut in S.T.
No.175 of 2004 (State Vs. Sohanpal)
convicting the appellant under sections 452 IPC
and sentencing him to 01 year rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo 01
month rigorous imprisonment, under section
376 IPC imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 01 year rigorous imprisonment,
under section 307 IPC imprisonment for life
and under section 380 IPC 01 year rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- only and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo 01
month rigorous imprisonment, respectively and
all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.

2. In view of the legislative mandate as
contained in Section 228-A of the Indian Penal
Code and the observation made by the Apex
Court in it's catena of judgments, the identity of
the prosecutrix/victim is not being disclosed
and she is referred to as 'A' hereinafter.

3. The prosecution case as set out in the
F.I.R. by the informant Kashi Ram, who
submitted a written report which was written by
Tota Ram on 27.11.2003 addressed to Station
House Officer of Police Station Transport
Nagar, Meerut stating that the informant Kashi
Ram resident of near Hapur Line, Mohalla
Chandralok, Police Station Transport Nagar in
the morning of 27.11.2003 he went to Rohta
Road for selling vegetables on a Cart. His wife
Sonwati had gone to purchase vegetables from
Mandi. His two younger children had gone to
school and his daughter was alone in the house
at about 8:30 a.m. Sohan Pal son of Megh Raj
resident of Kunwa Wali Gali, Lalapura Nai
Basti, Police Station Transport Nagar, Meerut
in morning in his absence had come to his
house and after bolting the house from inside
committed rape with his daughter namely 'A'
and in order to kill her, cut her neck. After the
incident he was seen coming out of the house
by Bhartu Khat Wala and Ram Chandra son of
Deewan Chandra, who were resident of
Mohalla Chandralok and his daughter 'A' in a
pool of blood came out of the house, who was
taken to police station by the said two persons
and the incident was seen by many other. On
receiving the information, the informant
reached the police station.

4. On the basis of the written report
submitted to the Police Station Transport Nagar
on 27.11.2003, a First Information Report was
registered on the same day at 9:45 a.m. at the
said police station against the appellant Sohan
Pal. The investigation of the case was entrusted
to Sub Inspector Subhash Chandra Tyagi, who
recorded the statements of witnesses under
section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared site-plan of
the place of occurrence and also recovered the
scissor, the weapon of assault and also prepared
the site-plan of the place from where the scissor
was recovered. A fard recovery of a paper,
which was written by the victim/prosecutrix
was also taken into custody by the Investigating
Officer on 27.11.2003. The Investigating
Officer also took into custody the bloodstained
clothes of the victim along with bloodstained
earth and plain earth, for which a recovery
memo was also prepared by the Investigating
Officer. The victim/prosecutrix was medically
examined at Medical College, Meerut and other
relevant
papers
were
prepared
by
the
1 All. Sohan Pal Vs. State of U.P.
1233
Investigating Officer, who submitted chargesheet against the appellant Sohan Pal under
sections 376, 307, 452 and 380 IPC. The case
was committed to the Court of Sessions by the
Magistrate and the trial Court framed charges
against the accused Sohan Pal under sections
452, 376, 307 and 380 IPC, which was denied
by the appellant, who claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in support of it's
case has examined P.W.1 Kashi Ram, P.W.
Ram Chandra, P.W.3 prosecutrix/victim
namely 'A', P.W.4 Dr. Kirti Dubey, P.W.5
S.I. Subhash Chandra Tyagi, P.W.6 Dr.
Sudhir Rathi, P.W.7 Dr. Subodh Tyagi.

6. The written statement filed by the
prosecution such as written report Exhbit
Ka-1, the recovery memo with respect to
paper written by the victim/prosecutrix
taken into custody by the police Exhibit
Ka-2, recovery memo of bloodstained
clothes of the victim and plain and
bloodstained earth Exhibit Ka-3, recovery
memo
of
the
weapon
of
assault
bloodstained scissor, which is used for
cutting clothes Exhibit Ka-2. The medical
examination
report
of
the
prosecutrix/victim prepared by Dr. Kirti
Dubey Exhibit Ka-4 and Ka-5. Site-plan
Exhibit Ka-6 and written statement of
prosecutrix/victim 'A' Exhbit Ka-4A, Chik
F.I.R. Exhibit Ka-9, carbon copy of G.D.
Exhibit Ka-10, charge sheet Exhibit Ka-7
and medical examination report of the
prosecutrix/victim Exhibit Ka-11.

7. The statement of appellant Sohan
Pal was recorded by the trial Court under
section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated
that the prosecution case against him is a
false one, which has been registered against
him in collusion with the informant and a
false and concocted report has been
prepared against him. The witnesses have
falsely and wrongly deposed against him
and all the proceedings which have been
initiated against him is a fabricated and
concocted
one
and
no
scissor
was
recovered at his pointing out and the
witnesses because of inimical relationship
had deposed against him and have falsely
implicated. The victim had taken some
money from him and the same was
outstanding on the victim of the appellant
and when he demanded the same, he was
falsely implicated. The accused in his
defence did not led any evidence.

8. P.W.1 Kashi Ram who is the
informant
and
father
of
the
victim/prosecutrix has deposed before the
trial Court reiterating the prosecution case,
as has been narrated in the F.I.R. and stated
that on 27.11.2003 in the morning he had
gone to Rohata Road for selling vegetables
on a Cart and his wife Sonwati had gone to
Mandi to purchase vegetables and in his
house two younger children had gone to
school and the victim/prosecutrix 'A' was
alone in the house, who was aged about 15
years and his elder son Manoj had also
gone to work on the same day. At about
9:00 a.m. Bhartu Khat Wala had come to
him and informed him that his daughter's
namely 'A' neck has been cut by Sohan Pal
and committed rape on her. Sohan Pal was
seen coming out of the house by Bhartu
Khat Wala and Ram Chandra. The
informant went to police station on the
Vicky (vehicle) of Bhartu Khat Wala to
police station where he found outside the
police station his daughter 'A' and other
persons of his Mohalla. He got the report
written by his brother Tota Ram outside the
police station and what was dictated by the
informant, the scribe wrote the same and
the said report was read over to him and he
had put his signature on the written report
after hearing the same and has proved the
1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
written report as Exhibit Ka-1, which was
dictated by him and proved his signature on
the same. He further deposed before the
trial Court that Sohan Pal was a distant
relative of the witness and he used to often
come to his house. On the day of the
incident, appellant Sohan Pal had come to
his house and the door was found to be
broken, which got it opened and came
inside and committed rape on his daughter
and with an intention to kill her, cut her
neck. Appellant after 15 days of the
incident surrendered and got the scissor, the
weapon of assault recovered and after 15
days, the witness was called at the police
station, on which he along with Swaraj
went to the police station and Sohan Pal in
the presence of them had told that he had
concealed the scissor near the railway track
in bushes and he can get the same
recovered. He along with Swaraj and Sohan
Pal were taken in police jeep by the police
to Hapur Railway Line where Sohan Pal
had got the scissor recovered, which was
bloodstained and Sohan Pal Stated that he
had cut the neck of the victim/prosecutrix
'A' with the same. The Investigating Officer
at about 3:00 p.m. on the same day
prepared the recovery memo of the scissor,
which was signed by him and other
witnesses and he proved the signature on
the same.

9. In the cross examination, the
witness has stated that he had four children
out of which three were daughters and one
son and the elder child was his son. He has
stated that his elder son is aged about 18
years
and
his
daughter,
the
prosecutrix/victim 'A' was aged about 16
years, the third daughter Manju was aged
about 14 years and the youngest one
Monika was aged about 11 years. He used
to sell vegetables at Rohta Road on a cart,
on which he used to sit alone. He used to
leave his house at 7:00 a.m. and his wife
used to go to Mandi to purchase the items.
He did not go to Mandi, as his wife used to
go alone. The time on which the incident
had taken place, he was on his vegetable
cart and his wife was also along with him.
His wife used to go to the house at about
10:10 a.m. after settling the vegetables on
his cart and his wife used to leave the house
at about 7:00 a.m. in the morning for
Mandi. Vegetables Cart is at a distance of
01 Km. away from his house. His house is
near Hapur Wali Line at Chandralok from
the place where he used to sell vegetables
on vegetable cart. The information about
the incident was firstly given to him by
Bhartu, who used to live opposite to his
house near Railway Line. Bhartu did not
frequently visit his house and only he was
known to the witness. When Bhartu had
informed about the incident then his wife
was also present at his vegetable cart.
Bhartu had told that that Sohan Pal had cut
the
neck
of
his
daughter
'A',
the
victim/prosecutrix and also committed rape
on her. On receiving the said information
he went to the police station along with
Bhartu on his Vicky (two seater vehicle),
he reached the police station at 9:00 a.m.
where he found his daughter victim 'A' at
outside alongwith other persons of his
mohalla and brother Tota Ram outside the
police station. He only knew Driver Prem
and Ram Chandra and did not know the
names of other persons there of his
mohalla. He had talked to his daughter 'A',
who was not able to speak. His wife had
reached the police station afterwards. They
remained outside the police station for
about 45 minutes and that time his daughter
'A' was unconscious and she did not tell
anything to him and on the information
given by Bhartu and Ram Chandra he had
lodged the report against Sohan Pal, who
had seen Sohan Pal coming out of his
1 All. Sohan Pal Vs. State of U.P.
1235
house. He had got the report written from
his brother Tota Ram. He had dictated the
report to Tota Ram, who had written the
same and he had put his signature on the
same. In the written report, he had written
that Sohan Pal had cut his daughter's neck
and committed rape on her and some other
things also he had got it written, but he did
not remember. He has further stated that
house of Sohan Pal was at great distance
from his house. Sohan Pal used to
frequently come to his house. He used to
visit
his
house
since
when
the
informant/witness was married in the year
1984. He neither carried on any business
with Sohan Pal nor had taken any money
from him on loan. He had gone to the
police station only once and thereafter had
gone to the police station after 15 days of
the lodging of the report. The Investigating
Officer had recorded his statement under
section 161 Cr.P.C. after 10 days of the
incident and after 15 days of the lodging of
the report. He went to the police station
when the appellant had surrendered. He had
proved the recovery of bloodstained scissor
at the pointing out of the appellant from the
bushes near Hapur Railway Line and he
was accompanied with witness Swaraj and
Sohan Pal in police jeep along with police
personnel at the place of recovery of
scissor. He further stated in his cross
examination that he had kept Rs.300/- at
his house, which was taken away by the
appellant Sohan Pal on the day of the
incident. He further deposed in his cross
examination that his daughter victim 'A'
was first admitted to Medical College
thereafter she was referred to All Indian
Institute of Medical Science, Delhi where
in January, 2005 she was operated, she
remained admitted in AIIMS for about one
month. He further deposed that the place
from where scissor was recovered there
was no plot or field but it was recovered
from the bushes near the Railway Line,
which was standing. The appellant had got
recovered the bloodstained scissor from the
bushes where he had concealed. He had
proved his written report Exhibit Ka-1 on
the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged
against appellant.

10. P.W.2 Ram Chandra in his
deposition before the trial Court has stated
that on 27.11.2003 at 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. in
the morning he was going to purchase milk
and on the way he met Bhartu Khat Wala,
who were going together and when they
reached the house of Kashi Ram then they
saw Sohan Pal coming out of the house of
Kashi Ram under fear. The witness went to
the house of Kashi Ram and saw from the
door of the house, which was opened, by
peeping and saw that the victim 'A' was
lying in pool of blood and there was no
clothes on her body, the witness raised
alarm on which people of the nearby area
gathered at the house of Kashi Ram, at that
time there was no one present at the house
of Kashi Ram, nor Kashi Ram or the
brother and sister of the victim 'A' were
present. The witness further stated that he
took the victim to police station. The report
of the incident was lodged by Kashi Ram at
the police Station, who was called and
brought by Bhartu at the police station. The
witness further stated that on 27.11.2003
the Investigating Officer had taken into
custody a paper written by the victim 'A',
for which a recovery memo was prepared
and he had put his thumb impression on the
same and the witness in his cross
examination has stated that his wife Sona is
the real Mausi of the victim 'A' and he is
Mausa of the victim. He has denied his
criminal antecedents and has further denied
that he used to change his residence
frequently. The witness has further deposed
that when he was going to take milk then
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he met Bhartu who met him 02 furlongs
from his house. The witness has further
stated that Bhartu did not accompany him
for taking milk. Bhartu was going to
Chandralok. He stated that on the alarm
raised he saw from the door of the house of
Kashi Ram, the victim 'A', who was in pool
of blood and naked. He further stated that
prosecutrix/victim 'A' in a pool of blood
had came out of the house and gone
straight to railway line crossing went away
towards Shiv Hari Mandir Colony. He
further stated that he saw the victim in a
naked condition wearing Kurta and seen
her running. He stated that he did not give
the said statement to the Investigating
Officer, who recorded his statement under
section 161 Cr.P.C., for which he cannot
tell any reason. He further stated that he did
not depose to the Investigating Officer that
the victim has told him that Sohan Pal had
bolted the room from inside and committed
rape on her. The said statement which has
been recorded by the Investigating Officer
of the witness, he cannot tell the reason for
recording of the same. The witness further
stated that when he for the first time peeped
in the house of the prosecutrix/victim 'A'
except her, he did not see any other person
there. Parents of the victim on receiving the
information rushed to the police station. He
further stated that in his cross examination
that he had once put his thumb impression
and did not put his thumb impression on
any other paper.

11. P.W.3 prosecutrix/victim 'A', who
is also an injured witness in the incident in
examination-in-chief, which was recorded
in question-answer form by the trial Court
has deposed that she knew the accusedappellant Sohan Pal. Kashi Ram is her
father and Sonwati is her mother. She
stated that her father used to keep
vegetables on a cart at Rohta Road and she
has one brother and they are three sisters.
At the time of the incident, she was at her
house, she has studied upto Class V and
after Class V she had left her studies. She
used to live at her house. She has stated
that at the time of the incident she was aged
about 16 years and the incident had taken
place on 27.11.2003 at 8:30 a.m. in the day.
At the time of the incident, she was at her
house, her mother had gone at 6:30 a.m. to
Mandi for taking vegetables and her sisters
had gone to school and her brother had
gone on work. Sohan Pal had come to her
house twice on the death of her grand
maternal mother (Nani). Two days prior to
the incident, he had come enquirying about
Palli, at that time her sister was with her,
hence he had returned from outside. Prior
to the incident she could speak. The
prosecutrix/victim
stated
that
on
27.11.2003 at 8:30 a.m. Sohan Pal had
come to her house and she had gone for
some work in her room and then Sohan Pal
followed her and closed her mouth and
thereafter he bolted the door from inside,
on which she raised alarm but as the
volume of the 'Deck' was raised full by
him, due to which person from outside
could not hear her and the appellant
committed rape on her. Victim knew the
meaning of rape. The accused caught string
of her Salwar pulled it off and rape was
committed by him on the floor of the house
and when she stated that she would
complain to her mother about the incident
then accused-appellant Sohan Pal had cut
her neck with the scissor, which is used for
cutting clothes. She was assaulted by the
accused with an intention to kill. At the
place of occurrence blood oozed out. The
accused Sohan Pal also taken Rs.300/-
which was lying on her Cot and realizing
that the victim has died he went away
leaving the door closed. When the victim
gained conscious she found herself in a
1 All. Sohan Pal Vs. State of U.P.
1237
naked condition and reached near the
Hapur Railway Line and people took her to
police station where she could not speak,
she wrote on a paper, which was taken
from a Register i.e. Paper No.1-A/2 and
proved the same, which was under her hand
writing and signature marked as Exhibit
Ka-4. She stated that after the incident, as
she was not able to speak, her father had
got a report written and her medical
examination was conducted. The victim in
her cross examination has stated that Sohan
Pal was his Mausa, her mother had three
sisters out of which none of them was
married to Sohan Pal. She stated that the
village from where her mother belong, in
the same village one Tausi used to live.
Tausi is not the sister of her mother. Sohan
Pal is not her real Mausa and is distantly
related to her as Mausa. The appellant is
not the resident of her mohalla and nor she
had gone to the house of Sohan Pal. Sohan
Pal used to live in Nai Basti, Lallapura and
she does not know how far is his house.
The witness further stated in her cross
examination that her parents had gone to
the house of Sohan Pal once or twice and
he used to sell Foot-mat (Paudan) and her
father had no partnership with him nor had
any money transaction with him nor he had
any quarrel with him. The witness stated
that on the day of the incident she was
wearing Salwar and suit and stated that on
her clothes bloodstained were found and
where are her clothes she does not know, as
she had become unconscious, blood was
also fallen on the ground. The railway line
is at a short distance. She stated that after
the incident she saw the appellant at the
time of recording of evidence before the
Court and before the same, she saw two
days before. The railway line is opposite to
her house. She reached near the railway
line as inside the door was opened. In the
incident about 1/2 an hour took place.
When she raised alarm Sohan Pal had
caught hold of her mouth. At the time of
incident there was only one person. The
accused-appellant had caught hold of her
hair by one hand and by the other he caught
hold of her mouth. Her salwar was not on
her body and the accused after committing
rape had worn his clothes, as the volume of
the Deck was raised, hence her alarm could
not reach outside the house. The accused
had first left. The victim was shown
Exhibit Ka-5 her statement, seeing the
same she stated that she has written the
same, which was dictated by the Sub
Inspector in the Hospital after 20-25 days
of the incident. It took 10 minutes for the
accused to commit rape. Firstly the medical
treatment of the victim was conducted at
Meerut Medical College and thereafter she
was referred to AIIMS, Delhi. Prior to the
incident she has not washed her clothes.
She
had
written
about
the
person
committing rape on her and gave same to
the police inspector and in the same she has
not written the parentage of Sohan Pal and
his residence. She has specifically denied
that some unknown boys of the mohalla
had committed rape on her and further
denied that on account of inimical enmity,
the name of Sohan Pal has been implicated.
She further stated that there was no money
transaction between her father and Sohan
Pal. The case has been rightly lodged
against Sohan Pal.

12. P.W.4 Dr. Kirti Dubey has been
examined before the trial Court and she has
stated that she had medically examined the
victim and her hymen was found torned
and admitting one finger with difficulty,
vaginal swab was taken and sent for the
presence of spermatozoa. On the basis of
radiologist report, the age of victim 'A' was
found to be above 16 years and less than 19
years.
She
has
proved
the
medical
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination report Exhibit 4A dated
28.11.2003. She opined that no definite
opinion regarding rape can be made at the
time of incident. She stated that the victim
could be aged about 16 years.

13. P.W. 6 Dr. Sudhir Rathi stated
that he had examined the victim at
Medical
College
Meerut
and
he
conducted her operation of neck on
27.11.2003. An injury was found on her
neck, which was found to be cut, which
was on the front side and the same was
bleeding. She was having difficulty in
breathing. She was given local anesthesia
and another way was made in order to
continue
the
breathing.
She
was
completely made unconscious and her
lairings was repaired and veins were
bleeding, which were tied and other
injuries were stitched and repaired. He
proved the supplementary report of the
victim and his hand writing and signature
and proved the same as Exhibit Ka-4.

14. P.W.7 Dr. Subodh Tyagi who
has examined the victim, has found the
following injuries on her person (Exhibit
Ka-11):-

"1. Lacerated wound 7 cm x 3
cm x depth not probed 2.5 cm below from
chin. Fresh blood present.

2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.25
cm x trachea exposed with abrasion in an
area of 5 cm x 3 cm around it on midline
of neck 4 cm below from injury no.1.
Sucking of air present from wound. Fresh
blood present.

3. Multiple linear incised wound
x depth not probed placed transversely on
front of lower neck varying in size from 3
cm to 9 cm. Fresh blood present.

Detailed examination of the
patient could not be done due to serious
condition and patient was shifted to
G.O.T. immediately for management in
the interest of her life."

15. In the opinion of the said doctor,
injury nos.1 and 2 were caused by hard and
blunt object, whereas injury no.3 by sharp
edged object and duration was found to be
fresh. The witness further stated that the
said injuries were dangerous to life, if the
medical treatment could not be given to the
victim and injury no.3 could be caused by
scissor.

16. P.W.5 S.I. Subhash Chandra
Tyagi, who is the Investigating Officer of
the case in his statement before the trial
Court has stated that the victim 'A' had
come at the police station and on her neck
there was injury and she was not able to
speak and she had not worn a Salwar and
she was given a trouser pant to wear the
same
in
order
to
save
her
from
embarrassment from public at large. He
stated that the victim with her bloodstained
hand had written on a register the name of
the accused Sohan Pal, who had committed
rape on her, on which she had signed the
same, which is marked as Exhibit Ka-4.
The said paper of the Register was taken
into custody by the witness, which was
signed by two witnesses and he has proved
the same as Exhibit Ka-2. The witness has
stated that as the condition of the victim 'A'
was very serious, hence she was first sent
to Pyare Lal Hospital. He prepared the siteplan of the place of occurrence and proved
the same as Exhibit Ka-6 in his hand
writing and signature. He also on the same
day, had recorded the statement of the
scribe of the F.I.R. Prior to it, he he had
taken
the
bloodstained
clothes
and
bloodstained earth and plain earth and also
bloodstained cement floor, for which he
prepared a recovery memo in his hand
1 All. Sohan Pal Vs. State of U.P.
1239
writing and signature and proved the same
as Exhbit Ka 3. He further stated that he
got a bloodstained scissor, which is used
for cutting clothes at the pointing out of
accused-appellant Sohan Pal recovered on
the information given by him. For getting
the same recovered, he took the appellant
on remand and recovered the same in
presence of of the informant and one
Swaraj Singh and he has prepared the
recovery memo of the scissor in his hand
writing and marked as Exhibit Ka-2. He
has also stated that prosecutrix/victim had
given a written statement in his presence,
which he has incorporated in the case diary
and the written statement of the victim has
been proved by him as Exhibit Ka-5.

17. After considering the prosecution
evidence and the statement of accused
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the
trial Court came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved it's case beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellant
Sohan Pal and, thus, convicted and
sentenced him for the offences in question
by the impugned judgment and order.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has
preferred the instant appeal.

18. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned
Amicus-Curiae for the appellant, Kumari
Meena, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

19. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 Kashi
Ram, who is the informant of the case is
not an eye witness of the occurrence and he
came to know about the incident from
Bhartu Khat Wala when he was selling
vegetables on his Cart and, thereafter, he
went to the police station along with Bhartu
and inquired about the incident from his
daughter and lodged the first information
report against the appellant, but the witness
Bhartu Khat Wala has not been produced
by the prosecution before the trial Court
and his evidence was not recorded. He
further submitted that the other witness
P.W.2 Ram Chandra, who saw the
appellant coming out of the house of the
informant after committing crime, but from
his evidence it is apparent that his
testimony is not trustworthy. He submitted
that Bhartu the eye witness, who had also
seen the appellant coming out of the house
of the informant after committing crime in
his cross examination P.W.2 has stated that
Bhartu had not gone with him to take milk
and Bhartu was going to Chandralok. He in
his cross examination when was confronted
with his statement under section 161
Cr.P.C.
which
was
given
to
the
Investigating Officer it was stated by him
that the prosecutrix/victim 'A' had told him
that Sohan Pal has committed rape on her
after bolting the room. He stated that he
cannot tell the reason as to how such a
statement was recorded by the Investigating
Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. He next
submitted that the accused in his statement
under section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated before
the trial Court that on account of enmity he
was falsely implicated in the present case
as
he
owed
some
money
to
the
prosecutrix/victim and when he demanded
the same, he was falsely implicated in the
present case. He next argued that the
appellant is already a married person, hence
it was not possible for him to commit such
a heinous crime. It was further argued that
from the evidence of P.W.5, the victim was
taken from police station to Pyare Lal
Hospital for treatment, and thereafter
referred to medical college, but there is no
medical report of Pyare Lal Hospital. As
per radiologist report, the victim is above
16 years and below 19 years of age. It
appears that the incident has taken place in
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
some other manner and not stated by the
prosecution. P.W.2 Ram Chandra, who
happens to be Mausa of the victim, his
evidence is highly interested and partisan
one, therefore no credibility should be
given to it. It was lastly submitted that the
appellant has surrendered and is in jail for
last 17 years i.e. since 2.12.2003 and the
time of incident he was aged about 50 years
and as on date he is 61 years of age. The
recovery, which has been made of Scissor,
the weapon of assault at the pointing out of
the appellant is after 15 days of the
incident, which is a false recovery, in fact
no recovery was made of Scissor at the
pointing of the appellant.

20. Learned AGA on the other hand
has vehemently opposed the argument of
learned counsel for the appellant and
submitted that as per the prosecution case,
the prosecutrix/victim is a minor girl aged
about 15 years on the date of incident and
as per her medical report she is stated to be
above 16 and below 19 years of age. She
was subjected to rape by the appellant in
the absence of her parents, brother and
sisters when she was alone in the house and
when she told the appellant that she would
complain about the incident to her parents
then she was further assaulted by scissor on
her neck by the appellant due to which she
received serious injuries on her neck and
was operated at Medical College, Meerut
thereafter admitted in AIIMS, New Delhi
and after the incident she was not able to
speak and she gave a written statement to
the police soon after the incident when she
reached the police station on a paper taken
out from a Register, which has been
marked as Exhibit 4A, in which she has
stated that it was the appellant who had
committed rape on her. Moreover, she has
also deposed against the appellant before
the trial Court categorically for subjecting
her to rape and further inflicting her serious
injuries on her neck. The eye witness
P.W.2 Ram Chandra and other eye witness
Bhartu Khat Wala had seen the appellant
coming out of the house in a disturbed
mental state and P.W.2 took the victim and
rushed to the police station along with other
persons of the mohalla whereas Bhartu
Khat Wala had gone to inform P.W.1 about
the incident, who thereafter reached the
police station and inquired about the
incident and lodged the F.I.R. against the
appellant on the same day and the trial
Court after assessing the evidence led by
the prosecution, has rightly convicted the
appellant for the offence in question. The
argument of learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is in jail for 17
years is of no significant keeping in view
the gravity of the crime committed by
appellant and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed by this Court.

21. After considering the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, we have gone through the
impugned judgment as well as record of the
case thoroughly. The appellant Sohan Pal is
named in the F.I.R., which has been lodged
by
P.W.1
Kashi Ram
promptly
on
27.11.2003 at 9:45 a.m. at Police Station
T.P. Nagar, Meerut, which was at a
distance of half kilometer away from the
place of occurrence for a incident, which
has taken place on 27.11.2003 at 8:30 a.m.,
on the information given by Bhartu Khat
Wala, where he was selling vegetables on a
Cart. At the time when the information was
given to him, his wife was also present.
P.W.1 on receiving the information about
the
incident
by
Bhartu
Khat
Wala
immediately rushed to the police station on
his Vicky (two seater vehicle) to the police
station, where he found his daughter along
with P.W.2 Ram Chandra and other
1 All. Sohan Pal Vs. State of U.P.
1241
persons of his mohalla outside the police
station. He talked to his daughter the
prosecutrix/victim 'A', who was unable to
speak and had given a written statement on
a paper, which was taken out from a
Register to the police, disclosing the fact
that her rape was committed by the
appellant Sohan Pal. The victim was in a
pool of blood and her clothes were also
bloodstained. The F.I.R. was written by his
brother Tota Ram at the police station and
submitted the same for lodging of the F.I.R.
against the appellant Sohan Pal, which was
registered on the basis of the written report
submitted by P.W.1, who proved the same
as Exhibit 1 before the trial Court.

22. When the accused surrendered on
2.12.2003, the Investigating Officer applied
for remand of the appellant from the Court of
A.C.J.M.,II, Meerut on 3.12.2003 and
recorded his statement and the appellant
further stated that he would get the weapon of
assault i.e. Scissor recovered. Thereafter on
11.12.2003 the accused/appellant was taken
on a police remand for two days and got
recovered
the
Scissor,
which
was
bloodstained near Hapur Railway Line from
the bushes, wrapped in a polythene and given
to the Investigating Officer and further
confessed that he had inflicted injuries with
an intention to cut the neck of the
prosecutrix/victim and the incident had taken
place on 21.11.2003 at 9:00 a.m. The
recovery memo of bloodstained scissor was
prepared by the Investigating Officer and
marked as Exhibit Ka-2 and the said recovery
was also made in the presence of informant
Kashi Ram and Swaraj Singh, who have
signed the recovery memo. The bloodstained
clothes of the prosecutrix/victim 'A', plain
earth and bloodstained earth along with piece
of broken floor, which was also bloodstained,
was taken by him and a recovery memo was
prepared, as Exhbit Ka-3 on 27.11.2003.

23. From the evidence of P.W.3, the
prosecutrix/victim 'A', whose statement was
recorded in question-answer form by the trial
Court reveals that she in her evidence has
categorically stated that on 27.11.2003 at
8:30 a.m. it was the appellant, who has
committed rape on her, while she was in her
house and her parents had gone out and her
two younger sisters had gone to school and
the brother had gone for his work and when
she tried to raise alarm, the volume of the
'Deck' was raised full by the appellant due to
which person from outside could not hear her
alarm for rescue. The accused Sohan Pal
committed rape on her, when she stated that
she would complain to her mother about the
incident, the accused-appellant Sohan Pal had
cut her neck by Scissor, which is used for
cutting clothes with an intention to kill her,
which started bleeding, on account of which
blood was found on her clothes and also
fallen on the floor. After the incident when
she gained conscious, she reached near the
Hapur Railway Line in a naked condition,
which was just in front of her house. People
took her to the police station and she wrote
on a paper, which was taken from a Register
i.e. paper no.1-A/2 and proved the same,
which was under her hand writing and
signature and marked as Exhbit Ka-4, in
which she disclosed that it was the appellant,
who committed rape on her. She stated that
after the incident she was not able to speak
and further her father had got a report written
and her medical examination was conducted.
From the medical examination report which
was conducted, it is apparent that she suffered
three injuries on her neck, which in the
opinion of the doctor was found to be serious
and
patient
was
shifted
to
G.O.T.
immediately for management in the interest
of her life.