Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 976 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-08-24

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. F.I.R. No. 57 dated 27.6.1999 has been registered at Police Station Nehianwala under Sections 354, 376, 374 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1969 (1989 ?) on the statement of Manjit Kaur wherein the following allegations are found :- 2. The complainants daughter Shamboo alias Baljinder Kaur aged 13 years is working in the house of Malkiat Singh (petitioner). On 18.6.1999 Shamboo alias Baljinder Kaur (hereinafter to as Baljinder Kaur) went to Malkiat Singhs house at 11 a.m. for working. There was nobody in the house except Malkiat Singh, who called Baljinder Kaur to his room, caught hold of, threw her on the bed, fondled her brests and kissed her inspite of her protest. On hearing her alarm, Malkiat Singhs servant Gurpreet Singh came there. On seeing him Malkiat Singh left Baljinder Kaur. 3. But complainant-Manjit Kaur addressed a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda, that Malkiat Singh started misbehaving with Baljinder Kaur and fondled her private parts. She has also stated therein that on 20.6.1999, Baljinder Kaur had gone to the house of Malkiat Singh, when no other member of Malkiat Singhs family was present there, Malkiat Singh committed rape on Baljinder Kaur. She has further stated that Malkiat Singh threatened the complainant that she should not report the matter or else she will be killed. She also stated that on 23.6.1999, she along with Baljinder Kaur went to an Advocate, who got an order from the Judicial Magistrate Bathinda, for the medico-legal examination, but, the lady Doctor Thukral, refused to examine her medically. According to the complainant on 24.6.1999 also the said Doctor refused to examine Baljinder Kaur. The complainant- Manjit Kaur also stated that on 25.6.1999 once again (she) moved an application, got an order, and Baljinder Kaur was examined by three Doctors at the Civil Hospital, but copy of the report was not given. The complainant has also alleged that Malkiat Singh is influential and rich man, and also Lambardar of the village and, therefore, police and doctors are helping him. The petitioners application for bail was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Bathinda, and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The petitioners application for bail was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Bathinda, and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 18.6.1999 whereas the F.I.R. has been registered on 27.6.1999 only, after a delay of nine days. He points out that initially the F.I.R. was registered under Section 354 IPC only, and the petitioner was released on bail by the investigating agency, but after the complaint dated 30.6.1999 by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, Sections 376 and 374 IPC along with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1969 (1989 ?) were also added. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was once again arrested on 1.7.1999 but after Harbans Singh, Superintendent of Police, who after investigation reported that Baljinder Kaur had not been raped, accordingly the charge sheet was presented under Section 354 IPC on 22.9.1999, Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner was once again released on bail on 23.9.1999. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that due to some political pressure Deputy Superintendent of Police (R) Bathinda, wrote a letter to the Board of Doctors on 22.1.2000 requesting them to give their opinion whether Baljinder Kaur had been subjected to intercourse. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Board of Doctors after going through the medico-legal report and the report of the Chemical Examiner opined that the possibility of intercourse cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that thereafter supplementary charge sheet including Sections 376 and 374 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attorcities) Act, 1969 (1989 ?) was filed, and the petitioner was arrested on 4.1.2000. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that apart from the delay in the registration of the FIR initially, in the complaint dated 30.6.1999 preferred by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, even the date of occurrence has been changed to 20.6.1999. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that apart from the delay in the registration of the FIR initially, in the complaint dated 30.6.1999 preferred by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, even the date of occurrence has been changed to 20.6.1999. He also points out that the prosecutrix-Baljinder Kaur was examined medico-legally by the Board of Doctors, and as per the report (Annexure P-3) there were no external injuries on the whole of the body, that there was no injury on the vulva, no oedema was there and that there was laceration on labia minora, that there was fresh oozing of blood. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the Chemical Examiner has given the opinion that there was no spermatozoa in the vaginal swab. 8. Pointing out these factors, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner who is rich and a lambardar of the village, has seen to it that the F.I.R. was recorded as if the occurrence had taken place on 18.6.1999 and as if the petitioner has only molested the prosecutrix, whereas the occurrence had taken place on 20.6.1999 and Baljinder Kaur had been raped. The learned counsel for the State also points out that Iqbal Singh the Sarpanch had recorded his statement on 5.1.2000 and has stated that the petitioner had made a confession on 4.1.2000. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no occasion or necessity on 4.1.2000 for the petitioner to make any confession at all. 9. Taking into consideration all these factors, but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Petition allowed. 10. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. Petition allowed.