Parhlad and Ors.. Vs. State of Haryana
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 (2) , Section 363 , Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 , Article 21
Reduction in sentence - Prayer for - Plea that the appellant are in custody for more than 8 years and sentence awarded of 10 years be reduced repelled - Appellants had taken advantage of their social relationship with the prosecutrix - She had innocently trusted the first appellant and, in fact, there was no reason to harbour any kind of doubt - Devilish design of the appellant No. 1 and the crafty manipulation of the appellant No. 2 is manifest - An offence of rape is basically an assault on the human rights of a victim - It is an attack on her individuality - It creates an incurable dent in her right and free will and personal sovereignty over the physical frame - Anyone who indulges in a crime of such nature not only does he violate the penal provision of the IPC but also right of equality, right of individual identity and in the ultimate eventuality an important aspect of rule of law which is a constitutional commitment - Regard being had to the gravity of the offence, reduction of sentence indicating any imaginary special reason would be an anathema to the very concept of rule of law.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 (2) , Section 363
Appeal against Conviction - Kidnapping - Rape - Age of prosecutrix - Deposition by prosecutrix that she was about 14 years of age at the time she went with her uncle and made a prey of the uncontrolled debased conduct of the appellants - Father of the prosecutrix has testified in a categorical manner about the factum of age of the prosecutrix - Principal, PW-1, who has proved the school leaving certificate has stood embedded in his testimony - Nothing has been elicited to create on iota of doubt in his testimony - On the said premises the conclusion has been arrived at that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 (2) , Section 363
Appeal against Conviction - Kidnapping - Rape - Age of prosecutrix - Ossification test - Radiologist who had conducted the ossification test had opined that the age of the prosecutrix might be 16-17 years - High Court in its analysis has recorded that the said piece of evidence was not beyond reproach inasmuch as it had not depicted the true situation as the eruption of teeth, number of teeth and many other aspects were not observed by the doctor conducting the ossification test and held the age of prosecutrix below 16 years on the basis of other oral and documentary evidence - No perversity of approach as regards the determination of age of the prosecutrix.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 (2) , Section 363
Consent - On the basis of evidence on record it is held that the prosecutrix is below 16 years of age consent is absolutely irrelevant and totally meaningless -Material brought on record clearly reveal that 'P', first cousin of the father of the prosecutrix in the absence of her parents at home had asked her to go with him for harvesting wheat crop to village' ' and accordingly she had accompanied him to the residence of the appellant No. 2, who is the maternal uncle of 'P' - Prosecutrix has deposed that she was in a totally helpless situation and despite her resistance she was sexually abused - Mental and physical condition of a young girl under the dominion of two grown up males who had become slaves of their prurient attitude can be well imagined - The consent, apart from legal impermissibility, cannot be conceived of.
Topic(s)-Rape - Consent - Prosecutrix Below 16 Years Age - Conviction