w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Praveen @ Bablu v/s State


Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN INDIA LTD . [Active] CIN = L21029WB1983PLC036326

Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1999PTC098397

    CRL. A. No. 533 of 2016

    Decided On, 16 June 2017

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

    For the Appellant: Biswajit Kumar Patra, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee's Panel Advocate. For the Respondent: Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor with SI Rameshwar Prasad.



Judgment Text


The legality of appellant’s conviction under Section 376 of IPC is the subject matter of this appeal. Impugned judgment of 14th March, 2016 holds appellant guilty of having raped prosecutrix, aged 5 years, on 18th August, 2012 at 3:30 P.M. at F-281, Phase-6, Aya Nagar, New Delhi.

2. Impugned order of 22nd March, 2016, sentences appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of `50,000/- for committing offence punishable under Section 376 (2) of IPC. Trial court has directed that in default of payment of fine, appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The facts as noticed in impugned judgment are as under: -

On 18th August 2012, SI Jaivir Singh recorded statement of Smt. Jameela (PW1), the mother of the victim, who told him that she alongwith her family was residing in a rented accommodation; that her one son, aged about 11 years was residing with his grand parents in their village, whereas her other four children were living with her; that on 18th August, 2012 at about 3.30 pm, her youngest daughter S, aged 5 years, alongwith other children was playing in the courtyard and she was chatting with Ms. Anjum, the aunt of her husband, and then Sameer, aged 6 years, the son of Anjum came to her and told her that Parveen @ Bablu uncle, having given her toffee had sent him outside to play and thereafter, he bolted her daughter S alongwith him in his room; that the mother of the victim rushed towards the room of Parveen and found that the door was closed; that she heard cries of her daughter through the window in the room; that she removed the curtain from the window and peeped inside and saw that Parveen @ Bablu had laid her daughter straight on the floor of the room and after laying himself on her was committing rape upon her; that she raised alarm in high voice and after hearing her voice the accused released her daughter and after putting her underwear on, opened the door of the room; that she caught hold of her daughter and after hearing her voice neighbours had gathered on the spot, and landlord Mobin Khan made a telephonic call to her husband, who after reaching the house called his employer S.K.Sharma, who after reaching called the police on number 100.

Trial court has relied upon the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-2) and that of her parents (PW-1 & PW-3), medical evidence and other evidence on record including evidence of SI Jaivir Singh (PW-12) and has discarded appellant’s version in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which is as under: -

“Question: Do you want to say anything else?

Answer: I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I further submits that on the day of incident, one of the children of Jameela had passed latrine in front of my house and when I objected to this, the mother of the victim started abusing me. I had met with an accident before the incident and at the time of the incident I was under treatment at the hospital and was not even able to walk. Due to the quarrel on the above mentioned issue, the complainant has falsely implicated me in this case.”

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that in pursuance of production warrants, appellant was produced in custody before the Court on the last date of hearing and he has already interacted with appellant and submits that he has been instructed by appellant to argue this appeal on merits.

4. Challenge to appellant’s impugned conviction by learned counsel for appellant is on the ground that the version put forth by prosecutrix’s father of her underwear being soaked in blood does not stand substantiated from the FSL report and that no public persons were joined in the investigation of this case and the false implication of appellant is due to the quarrel which appellant had with family of the prosecutrix regarding one of the children of prosecutrix’s mother defecating in front of appellant’s house. It is pointed out that as per evidence of prosecutrix’s mother (PW-1) and Investigating Officer (PW-12), public persons had gathered at the spot but none of them was got examined to corroborate prosecution version, which ought not to be relied upon in view of the stand taken by appellant before trial court.

5. It is submitted by appellant’s counsel that prosecution version of there being abrasions and scratches on the body of prosecutrix do not stand substantiated. It is pointed out by appellant’s counsel that as per version of prosecutrix’s father, they were first taken to police station and from there to the hospital, but there is no corroboration of this version by prosecutrix or her mother. To discredit the version put forth by prosecutrix, learned counsel for appellant points out that there is variation in the version put forth by prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and her evidence before the Court and so, the inconsistencies between the two versions entitle appellant benefit of doubt. Lastly, it is submitted that appellant deserves to be acquitted as the prosecution case is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

6. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supports impugned judgment and submits that appellant has committed a heinous crime and the offence committed by him stands duly proved from evidence on record and the so-called infirmities pointed out by appellant’s counsel in the prosecution case are immaterial and so, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.

7. After having duly considered the submissions advanced by both the sides and on perusal of impugned judgment, order on sentence and the evidence on record, I find that the crucial evidence is of prosecutrix (PW-2), from which it is quite evident that she was sexually assaulted. Infact, prosecutrix has clearly stated in her deposition that after the sexual assault, there was blood and she felt hurt. Pertinently, there is no cross- examination of prosecutrix regarding her bleeding after she was sexually assaulted. Non-mention of bloodstains on prosecutrix’s panty in the FSL report, is inconsequential in the facts of the instant case.

8. Supreme Court in its recent decision in State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, I (2017) DLT (CRL.) 41 (SC)=VIII (2016) SLT 545=(2017) 2 SCC 51 while dealing with the case of child victim, who was subjected to rape, has reiterated as under:-

“………..it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance.”

9. Non-joining of public witnesses in a case like instant one is immaterial because the veracity of version put forth by prosecutrix has to be objectively considered. Since I find that the deposition of prosecutrix is trustworthy, therefore, I hold that non-joining of public witness in the investigation of this case is of no consequence. On a bare perusal of prosecutrix’s MLC, I find that there is mention of brown scabbing on the face and chest of prosecutrix and also an oval shape bite mark was found on the chest of prosecutrix. Thus, the version put forth by father of prosecutrix does not get diluted from the medical evidence. Simply because no semen was detected on the vaginal slide, would not justify an inference that there was no sexual assault on the prosecutrix. MLC of prosecutrix does reveal that there was some kind of injuries on her private parts which fortifies prosecutrix’s assertion of sexual assault by appellant. It is pertinent to note that it has come in the evidence that appellant was residing in the house of prosecutrix and was having cordial relations with the family of prosecutrix and the above-said evidence remains unchallenged and so, in the instant case, no prudent person can conclude that appellant has been falsely implicated because he objected to children of prosecutrix’s mother defecating in front of house or because of quarrel on this count. Neither parent would stake the honour of their minor daughter and the family, to level such a serious accusation of rape against appellant, to settle the scores on account of such a trivial quarrel, particularly when the relations were cordial. Whether prosecutrix and her parents were first taken by police to police station or straightaway to hospital, would not be of any consequence in the facts of the instant case and on such inconsequential plea, appellant cannot earn acquittal in a case like instant one.

10. It is true that prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. narrated the entire incident in a forthright manner as said statement was recorded on the next day of the incident whereas the evidence of prosecutrix was recorded in the court after more than one year. Still, there is no variation or contradiction between the version put forth by prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the court. The only difference is that prosecutrix’s initial version of the incident in he

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

r statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. recorded by a Magistrate is more detailed, whereas before the court, she has briefly deposed, but has stated essential facts from which it can be easily gathered that she was raped. Infact, it has come in the cross- examination of prosecutrix that she was alone with appellant-accused in the room at the time of this incident. Nothing more needs to be said, to conclude that appellant had committed this heinous offence. Minimum sentence as provided in law has been awarded to appellant. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, evidence of prosecutrix is consistent and it stands amply corroborated from evidence of parents and the medical evidence. There is no material infirmity in the prosecution case, to justify granting of benefit of doubt to appellant. In view of foregoing narration, I find no substance in this appeal and as such, it is dismissed. The concerned Jail Superintendent to apprise appellant about fate of his appeal. 12. This appeal is disposed of while appreciating the able assistance rendered by learned counsels on both the sides. Appeal dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 A. Praveen Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-06-2020 State of Telangana Versus Polepaka Praveen @ Pawan Supreme Court of India
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Khariwal Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Chaudhary & Others Versus Election Commission of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Praveen, Proprietor Versus Sumesh, KaleeckalVeedu, KrishnapuramMuri, Krishnapuram & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-01-2020 Praveen & Another Versus Baby Ulhahnan & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-01-2020 Pankaj Kumar Versus Praveen Jain High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-01-2020 P.V. Philip Versus Praveen & Another High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Praveen Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
17-10-2019 Praveen Kumar Prakash & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
11-10-2019 R. Jaikrishnan @ Jaikrishnan Nair Versus G. Praveen Kumar High Court of Kerala
10-07-2019 Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Another Versus Praveen Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-06-2019 Y.A. Praveen & Another Versus Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Neervaram, Wayanad High Court of Kerala
21-05-2019 Joginder Singh Chauhan & Another Versus Praveen Dulta Chauhan & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
01-05-2019 Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya Versus Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Praveen Gupta Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-04-2019 Praveen Kapila Versus Navin Soi & Another High Court of Delhi
01-04-2019 Praveen Kumar Kommineni Versus The State High Court of Delhi
22-02-2019 Praveen Versus The Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2019 B. Praveen Kumar Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Tuticorin & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-01-2019 Maithili Manhar Siswawala Versus Praveen Kenneth Samuel James High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-01-2019 Praveen Kumar Arora Versus Akshay High Court of Delhi
08-01-2019 Praveen Kakar & Others Versus Ministry of Environment & Forests & Others National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-12-2018 The Director of Insurance Medical Services, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Dr. V. Praveen High Court of Kerala
22-11-2018 Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Jagdish Prasad Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-11-2018 Ch. Praveen Kumar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-11-2018 Kushal Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Ito Non Corporate Ward 5(1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
06-11-2018 Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd. Versus Praveen Chandra Trivedi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-10-2018 Praveen Poddar Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2018 Khandya Praveen @ Praveen Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-09-2018 Meghna Gopal Versus Praveen Chandran High Court of Kerala
21-08-2018 Praveen Arjun Patel Versus J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
13-08-2018 Manjunath Dasappa & Others Versus Trans Global Power Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory T.K. Praveen High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 Praveen Agarwal, Agra Versus Dcit Central Circle, Agra Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra
07-08-2018 Praveen Singh @ Bhaya Singh Versus State High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
02-08-2018 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27-07-2018 P. Rithika, Minor, rep. by her father and guardian P. Praveen Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, School Education Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Praveen John Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
04-07-2018 Asma Praveen Versus Badru Nisa & Others High Court of Delhi
25-05-2018 Dr. A.P.S. Guru Praveen Versus Directorate of Medical Education Government of Tamilnadu Kilpauk, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-05-2018 Praveen Engineering Works V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Hyderabad
24-04-2018 Praveen George Joseph & Another Versus Ramesh Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-03-2018 Praveen Versus Hanuman In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2018 Praveen Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-03-2018 Praveen Versus Deepa High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
19-02-2018 L.M.D. Athiya Praveen Versus N.B. Riyas Ahmed & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-02-2018 Praveen Maben Versus Nalini Maben High Court of Madhya Pradesh
18-01-2018 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Delhi
11-01-2018 K. Praveen Versus B.S. Nagaraj High Court of Karnataka
03-01-2018 Sajeeda Praveen Shaik Versus The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
03-01-2018 C. Praveen Versus V. Prakash & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
29-12-2017 Praveen s/o Krishnan Versus Public Prosecutor Supreme Court of Singapore
05-12-2017 Praveen Kumar & Another Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-11-2017 Kumar @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus State by Inspector of Police (Law & Order) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2017 Roopesh @ Praveen Versus Union of India, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, National Investigation Agency, [NIA] High Court of Kerala
24-11-2017 Dr. S. Praveen Kumar Versus The Senior Manager, Credit Card Division, ICICI Bank, Hyderabad Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
21-11-2017 Praveen @ Parveen Kumar Jain & Another Versus Earth Infrastructures Ltd., (Through its MD) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-11-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus N. Surendra Kalyan Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-11-2017 Praveen Kumar Maakar Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
17-10-2017 Praveen Singh @ Pappu Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2017 Nipun Praveen Singhvi Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-10-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus M. Andalamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
03-10-2017 Praveen R. Prasad & Another Versus The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-09-2017 Praveen Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-09-2017 A. Praveen @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The State through The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-09-2017 Rupesh Sharma Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Himachal Pradesh
31-08-2017 Praveen Kumar Pandey @ Babua Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2017 B. Asaithambi & Another Versus Praveen Chordia & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2017 Munja Praveen & Others Versus State of Telangana & Others Supreme Court of India
16-08-2017 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2017 R. Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The Inspector of Police, Trichy District & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2017 Vanjari Praveen Kumar Versus Vanjari Lakshmi Bhavani In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2017 Praveen Kumar Jain, Worked At Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Versus The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-04-2017 Sri Sai Venkateswara Builders, Rep. by Managing Partner Versus T. Praveen & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-04-2017 Praveen Kumar Singh & Another Versus Medinimata Agro Products (P) Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata
04-04-2017 Praveen Kumar & Others Versus Sharath Chida & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
31-03-2017 Praveen Etta Versus Savithri Etta High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-03-2017 Praveen Versus Sabitha & Another High Court of Kerala
03-03-2017 S.G. Praveen Gowda Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-02-2017 H.D. Praveen Kumar & Others Versus Vice Chancellor, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-02-2017 Smt. Kala Devi Versus Praveen Surana & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
08-02-2017 Gunjan Versus Praveen Surendra Pal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2017 Rfn Praveen Kumar Versus Union of India & Others Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
31-01-2017 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Praveen High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-01-2017 PR. Commissioner of Income tax-XVIII Versus Praveen Saxena High Court of Delhi
10-01-2017 Praveen Kumar Versus The State of Rajasthan through P.P. High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
15-12-2016 Korra Praveen Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
22-11-2016 Reena Kumari & Others Versus Praveen Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India