Srinagar: A Sessions court on Saturday convicted a resident of Bihar for the offences of kidnapping and raping a 15-year-old girl in the Kralkhud Police Station area of Srinagar in 2016.
Renu Dogra Gupta, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar in her judgment held that the prosecution has beyond any reasonable doubt succeeded in establishing its case fully against the accused Santosh Kumar Paswan, son of Saider Paswan, resident of Lalpora Bhim Nagar, Bihar.
The judgment read “by way of reliable and clinching evidence and the documents placed on record have been fully proved and exhibited during trial, on the basis of which, no conclusion other than guilt of the accused stands established.”
The court accordingly convicted the accused Santosh Kumar Paswan for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of RPC.
The accused, who was present in the court, was ordered to be sent back to judicial custody in Central Jail Srinagar and directed to be produced before the court on March 20 the day for pronouncing the award of his sentence.
The prosecution says that on 1st of September 2016, a complainant was lodged with the Police Station Kralkhud that in the complainant’s house Santosh Kumar Paswan was doing masonry work. However, even after completing his work, he frequented the complainant’s house.
“Today since early morning his daughter has been missing from her house. The complainant had a strong doubt that his minor daughter had been enticed for committing illicit intercourse with her,” the prosecution said citing the complaint.
A case was registered and investigation started. The search for the prosecutrix and kidnapper began. During the course of search, Police Post Humhama informed the investigators that they got information on phone that prosecutrix and kidnapper were found riding on a motorcycle (JK01J/6951). The duo were going in a suspicious condition towards Airport and during naka checking they were apprehended and brought to the Police Post, it added.
The prosecutrix (girl) was recovered from the possession of the accused. The statements of witnesses conversant with facts of the case and eyewitnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested and his heirs informed. The motorcycle, air tickets of the accused and the prosecutrix from Srinagar to Delhi were seized, it read.
The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by a doctor who reported that in her womb a fetus of about 10 weeks and 6 days was present. The prosecutrix was unmarried.
Actually the accused used to go to her home and after taking advantage of her being minor and immature, the kidnapper established illegal terms with the prosecutrix, said the prosecution.
Further, the accused without permission of her guardian has taken her from her home and as such offences under section 361,376 RPC were established against the accused.
The court after hearing the arguments and counter arguments said that it cannot afford to overlook the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had been raped by the accused who used to earn livelihood while working at her house as mason.
Referring to the statement of the prosecutirx the court said “after taking benefit of absence of her family members at the relevant time, offered her juice due to which she fell unconscious and committed rape with her due to which she became pregnant.
“She after making him aware of the fact of her pregnancy, the accused told her to run away with him for which due to compulsion she agreed.”
The court observed that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman/girl would come forward in court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as being involved in the commission of rape on her.
“In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Seeking any corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to injury. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances,” it held.
