Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1133 (PNJ)

Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-08-13

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - The accused, Gurpal Singh, then aged 40 years, was convicted under Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed rape on Dharam Kaur, aged about 18 years, on 27.12.1989. 2. The facts of the case are that at about 5.30 P.M. on 27.12.1989, Dharam Kaur resident of village Kacha Machhiwara went to tether her buffalo in the out-house located at a distance of about one and a half killas from their residential house. While she was tethering the buffalo, the accused, who lived in her neighbourhood, entered the Chhapar, caught hold of her and after throwing her on a cot lying at the spot raped her. Dharam Kaurs shrieks attracted her elder brother Dharam Pal, who reach the place immediately and attempted to catch hold of the accused, but he managed to escape. Dharam Pal accompanied by his wife Gurmit Kaur then took Dharam Kaur to the Civil Hospital, Machhiwara where she was examined by Dr. Gurmit Singh (PW-3) but as a lady doctor was not available, he referred her to the Civil Hospital, Samrala where she was medically examined by Dr. Rupinder Kaur (PW-1). On receipt of a wireless message from the Police Station, Samrala, Sub Inspector Manmohan Singh reached the hospital and recorded her statement (Exh. PG) at 2.30 P.M. on 28.12.1989 and on its basis the formal FIR was duly registered. The accused was arrested and on the completion of the investigation, was charged for the aforesaid offence and as he pleaded not guilty was brought to trial. 3. The prosecution in support of its case relied on the evidence of Dr. Rupinder Kaur (PW-1), Dr. Anupam Wats (PW-2), the Radiologist, who opined that the prosecutrix was about 18 years of age; Dr. Gurmit Singh (PW-3); Dharam Kaur (PW-5), the prosecutrix; Dharam Pal (PW-6), her brother; and Sub Inspector Manmohan Singh (PW-7), the Investigating Officer. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. 5. Gurmit Singh (PW-3); Dharam Kaur (PW-5), the prosecutrix; Dharam Pal (PW-6), her brother; and Sub Inspector Manmohan Singh (PW-7), the Investigating Officer. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. 5. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence held that Dharam Kaurs evidence had to be accepted and the suggestion that she had been forced to make a false statement at the instance of her brother Dharam Pal so as to involve the accused in a false case, could not be believed. The Court also held that the evidence of Dr. Gurmit Singh (PW-3) appeared to be suspect as there was no reason as to why after examining Dharam Kaur he had referred her to Dr. Rupinder Kaur in the Civil Hospital, Samrala. The trial Court accordingly convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their assistance. 7. It is true that rape is a heinous offence and has the effect of destroying a woman not only physically but mentally as well, but at the same time a false allegation of rape can destroy the name and reputation of an accused lowering him in the eyes of his family and the public. This fact must also to be kept in mind while discussing the evidence in such cases. Mr. Vinod Ghai, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that it was proved from the evidence of Dr. Anupam Wats (PW-2) and in fact not even denied by the prosecution that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. He has further submitted that from the evidence of Dr. Rupinder Kaur it was clear that no rape had been committed and that the other evidence suggested that the accused had been roped in falsely on account of the enmity between Dharam Pal PW and the accused. 8. Mr. He has further submitted that from the evidence of Dr. Rupinder Kaur it was clear that no rape had been committed and that the other evidence suggested that the accused had been roped in falsely on account of the enmity between Dharam Pal PW and the accused. 8. Mr. S.S. Randhawa, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State has, however, argued that it would be clear from the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh. PM) that the swabs taken from the prosecutrix had been found to be stained with semen and as such a case of rape had been clearly proved. He has also urged that it would be difficult to accept that a brother would ever make a false allegation of rape of his sister even if it was to settle scores with a mortal enemy. 9. It is the prosecution case that soon after the incident, Dharam Pal PW had removed Dharam Kaur to the Civil Hospital, Machhiwara where she had been medically examined by Dr. Gurmit Singh (PW-3). While recording the case history (Exh. DA) the prosecutrix made a statement denying the commission of rape upon her and the said statement had been handed over to Dharam Pal PW. Likewise this doctor found that there was no evidence of rape on her. She had nevertheless been referred to the Civil Hospital, Samrala for expert opinion and examination by a lady doctor. Dr. Rupinder Kaur who was then posted in the Civil Hospital, also examined the prosecutrix and clearly observed that though the hymen had been captured, yet it appeared to have happened at least three weeks earlier as there was no tenderness on the private parts of the prosecutrix. She further stated that the possibility of the prosecutrix to be habituated to sexual inter-course could not be ruled out. It is, therefore, apparent that the evidence of rape is absolutely sketchy and the evidence of Dr. Rupinder Kaur does not correspond to the alleged time of rape. It is in this back-ground that Mr. Ghais second argument with regard to the false implication of the accused remains to be examined. It is, therefore, apparent that the evidence of rape is absolutely sketchy and the evidence of Dr. Rupinder Kaur does not correspond to the alleged time of rape. It is in this back-ground that Mr. Ghais second argument with regard to the false implication of the accused remains to be examined. Dharam Kaur in her cross- examination admitted that Bachna Ram was her real uncle (Taya) and was issueless and that he had transferred his property to Dharam Pal, her brother, but denied that she was ever aware of the fact that Bachna Ram had entered into an agreement with the accused with respect to his property. Dharam Pal, however, admitted that he had inherited the property of Bachna Ram under a Will, and that civil litigation between him and the accused had ensued with respect to that property after the present occurrence. It also appears from the evidence that an agreement to sell had been executed by Bachna Ram in favour of appellant Gurpal Singh, but the sale deed could not be executed before the death and it is on that account that Dharam Pal PW admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had often sent messages calling upon him to execute the sale deed in his favour, although he was not prepared to do so. Dharam Pal also stated that he has executed a pronote of Rs. 42,500/- in favour of the accused prior to the present occurrence and also admitted that the accused had instituted a suit against him for the recovery of the said amount. Even Inspector Manmohan Singh (PW-7) deposed in his cross-examination that during the course of the investigation it had come to his notice that the prosecutrix had complained that she had been pressurised by her brother Dharam Pal and who had beaten her so as to compel her to falsely involve the accused and that she had also complained to Lambardar Rasal Singh on this account. To my mind, therefore, making a cumulative assessment of the evidence, it appears that the involvement of the accused is suspect. This appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the trial Court is set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Appeal allowed.