You are on page 1of 5

Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW


UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

ACADEMIC SESSION:

2014 2015

CRIMINAL LAW - II

PROJECT

CASE COMMENTARY

FATEH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA

AIR 2009 SC 2729

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mr. K.A. Pandey Anshuman Vikram Singh

Asst. Professor (Law) B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)

RMLNLU IV semester

Roll No. 24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would take great pleasure in thanking my Criminal Law professor, Mr. K.A.
Pandey for his infallible support all through the course of this project. This
endeavor would not have been in its present shape had he not been there
whenever I needed him. He has been a constant source of support all the while.

Also I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the library staff for always
helping me out with finding excellent books and material almost every time I
needed. They too have been a constant support system in the completion of this
project.

Last but surely not the least- I would like to thank my friends for their timely
critical analysis of my work and special feedback, that worked towards the
betterment of this work.

-ANSHUMAN VIKRAM SINGH


INTRODUCTION

This appeal was made in the apex court against the judgment of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2004, decided on May 29, 2009).
The judgment and order dated 21.8.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 341-SB of 1988 by which the High Court
has dismissed the appeal against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridabad dated 12.8.1988 and 16.8.1988 convicting and sentencing the appellant to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or else
to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 376 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 366 IPC. However, it
was directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run
concurrently.

FACTS

A complain was lodged, as Prosecutrix Geeta was asked by the appellant's wife
Krishna to go visit Ballagarh as her mother has met with an accident.
Appellant Fateh Chand also travelled with the prosecutrix, he asked Geeta that her
mother is in a hospital and he will assist her to the hospital.
Appellant arranged for a car and asked Geeta to sit and she was given an intoxicant in
lemon water.
Prosecutrix was taken to the house of Shanti Devi mother-in-law of the appellant,
where she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant.
Prosecutrix was left at the house of Shanti Devi where she was sexually abused and
coerced to indulge in Prostitution.
After few weeks appellant and his wife visited the prosecutrix and asked her to not to
return home, as a dead body has been recovered and it was identified as Geeta's. Thus
if she returns home her parents will be in difficulty.
After one and the half year later Geeta returned home and she was produced before
police and investigation started and Fateh Chand was charged under section 366, 376
of IPC. To which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

ISSUE INVOVED
Age of the prosecutrix?
Whether there should be physical injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix?
Delay in FIR?

LAW ON THE POINT


Section 366 of IPC
Section 376 of IPC.

DECISION OF THE COURT


The appeal was dismissed by the supreme court. Supreme court held that

" Prosecutrix had been taken away from the lawful custody of her parents by the Appellant
and she had been subjected to rape and was coerced to indulge in prostitution - Thus, the
case certainly boarded on trafficking of women - Thus, there is nothing on record to show
that prosecution could not prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt for
the offences punishable under Section 366/376 IPC - Appeal dismissed"

CASE ANALYSIS

The prosecutrix was minor at the time of kidnapping as per the evidence given by her mother
and father, it was clear that her parents got married 20 years prior to the date of incident. after
due analysis by the court it was found out that on the date of incident, the age of the
prosecutrix was less than 16 years. This fact was further corroborated by the doctor who
examined the prosecutrix radiologically opined that her age could have been between 14 and
17 years as on the date of the incident.

Initially when the prosecutrix went missing, a complaint was filed by her parents and later
when a dead body was recovered which her parents testified as Geeta's and subsequently the
case was closed.

Meanwhile, the prosecutrix was coerced by the appellant that if she returned home her
parents would have to face dire consequences thus she was compelled to be a prostitute.
There were no signs of any physical injury on her body as clearly after being subjected to
same kind of treatment one's body becomes habitual of it. Even animals tend to adapt
according to the surroundings as part a natural phenomenon. Prosecutix returned home after
one and the half year and her body was habitual to sexual intercourse hence there could be no
physical injury on her body.

The delay in the FIR could be explained by the fact that the prosecutrix had returned home
after the passage of one and a half year and the FIR which was filed when she first went
missing, that case was closed down.

Hence, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the punishment given by session
court was maintained.

CONCLUSION
I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court and the High Court because they were very
reasonable in the conclusions that they reached. No injury was found to be present on the
body of the prosecutrix, the court did not offer a blind eye to it and went beyond what was
apparent. They have been very right in giving no weight to the absence of bodily injuries
because clearly the prosecutrix returned after a year and in this duration she had become
immune to the treatment meted out to her.

As per the evidence (by radiology) and also that produced by her father the court came to a
conclusion that her age at the time of incident was below sixteen.

The delay in the FIR was owed to her return after a year and a half and the FIR lodged for the
first time when she went missing led to the closing of the case.

I consider the decision of the court has done justice to the prosecutrix.

You might also like