Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1237 (PNJ)

Mohar Pal v. State of Haryana

2003-09-03

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Mohar Pal son of Puran, the appellant herein, stands convicted under Section 363 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal. 2. It is worth mentioning here that the appellant along with his two co- accused, namely, Rambir and Sher Singh were initially booked in this case. All the three accused were charged under Sections 363/366 Indian Penal Code whereas the present appellant was additionally charged under Section 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code. Rambir and Sher Singh have been acquitted of all the charges. The present appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code but stands convicted under Section 363 Indian Penal Code only. 3. Kumari Shashi PW3 is prosecutrix in this case. She is the daughter of Chander Pal PW4. The case of the prosecution is that the present appellant had taken a room on rent in the house of Chander Pal. The allegations further are that the appellant had told Kumari Shashi that he wanted to marry her and on 17.10.1990 he told her to meet him at Tigaon Road, Ballabgarh at about 6.00 P.M. and consequently at about 5.30 P.M. Kumari Shashi came out of her house and proceeded towards the place fixed by the appellant. She found that a Maruti van No. DL-3C-3228 was already parked there. The present appellant and his co-accused, namely, Rambir and Sher Singh (since acquitted) were present there. All the three made her to sit in the vehicle which was driven towards Palwal side on way to Aligarh. When she did not return to house till late in the evening, her parents started searching her. Chander Pal received information from Harbir and Suresh that Kumari Shashi was spotted in a Maruti car which was being driven towards Palwal. The case of the prosecution further goes that on 18.10.1990 i.e. the next day, the present appellant along with Kumari Shashi were recovered by the Police. She was immediately medically examined by Dr. Amita Gupta (PW1) and thereafter her X-ray examination was conducted by Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW5). The case of the prosecution further goes that on 18.10.1990 i.e. the next day, the present appellant along with Kumari Shashi were recovered by the Police. She was immediately medically examined by Dr. Amita Gupta (PW1) and thereafter her X-ray examination was conducted by Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW5). It was determined vide Ex. PA that the age of the prosecutrix was between 14-16 years. 4. After completion of the investigation, the present appellant and his co- accused were challaned in this case. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in this case. I need not enter into detailed discussion in this regard because the learned counsel for the appellant does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and has confined his arguments to quantum of sentence. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contends that taking the prosecution story as it is, the above said prosecutrix was a consenting party as she had gone with the appellant with her own consent. He then contends that the present appellant has earned conviction only on the ground that on the date of occurrence, the age of the prosecutrix was less than 18 years. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of prosecutrix once again in which she in her cross examination has categorically stated as under :- "......... I had walked down to the place. I had a sum of Rs. 2500/- with me. I had also carried a golden ring, golden necklace and silver Paijeb with me. I had taken out these ornaments from the box of my mother. I had taken out the same just before leaving my house for Tigaon Road. I had not told my mother about it. Several persons crossed me on way from my house to Tigaon Road.............." 7. From the above said facts, learned counsel for the appellant contends that may be technically the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code is made out for the reason that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age but the totality of the circumstances makes out the present case for showing a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. He further contends that in this eventuality, the severe punishment of two years in this case as imposed by the trial Court would not be justified. He further contends that in this eventuality, the severe punishment of two years in this case as imposed by the trial Court would not be justified. In support of this contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in State of Haryana v. Islam, 1987(1) RCR 259. In this case, the prosecutrix had eloped with the accused with her own consent. She was less than 18 years of age. The accused was awarded 15 days sentence on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The learned counsel contends that in the present case, the appellant remained in custody for about 20 days and ends of justice would be adequately met in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Mr. Bhardwaj refutes the arguments advanced by Mr. Sharma vehemently and contends that the appellant does not deserve any sympathy so far as quantum of sentence is concerned as he had enticed the young girl of less than 18 years with the allurement to marry her and thereafter took her in the Maruti van to a different place. He then contends that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is liable to be maintained. 9. After hearing the rival contention of both sides, I am of the view that the appellant does deserve a lenient view so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. The present case relates to the year 1990. The appellant by now has already suffered the rigour of protracted trial of long 13 years. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 20 days. The authority 1987(1) RCR 259 (supra) squarely covers the case of the present appellant. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Let the intimation of the result be sent to the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.