Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 967 (PNJ)

Narender Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-07-16

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
ORDER Virender Singh, J. - Narender Singh son of Har Gobind Singh the appellant herein has been convicted under Sections 376 read section 511 Indian Penal Code and section 342 Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 27.7.1990 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months under Section 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code and to undergo RI for six months under Section 342 Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is worth mentioning here that the appellant was initially charged under Section 376/342 Indian Penal Code but he has been acquitted for the said charge and has been convicted as stated above. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 7.8.89 at about 3-4 PM, Pinky alias Tanu PW6 daughter of Des Raj and Kajal PW7 had gone to play the game of stapoo in the street. They were playing the stapoo in front of the house of the appellant. The case of the prosecution further is that the appellant took Pinky to his house and made her to lie on the takhatposh placed in the verandah. It is then the allegation that the appellant removed her under wear and also removed his pant and under wear a litter bit and then made an attempt his to commit rape with Pinky but her father Des Raj PW8 reached the spot and saw the appellant lying on his daughter. He made an attempt to catch hold the appellant but he managed to run away. Des Raj went to the police station, lodged his report Ex. PL to PW9 Baljit Singh District Inspector. The police swung into motion immediately. PW9 Baljit Singh came to the spot and prepared rough site plan and recorded statement of witnesses. Pinky was also medically examined by Dr. Neeru Kalra PW 1 and the doctor opined that the possibility of rape could not be ruled out. The appellant was arrested in this case. He was also medico-legally examined by PW2 Dr. C. Paul who opined that the appellant was fit to perform sexual intercourse. After investigation the appellant was challaned in this case as stated above. Neeru Kalra PW 1 and the doctor opined that the possibility of rape could not be ruled out. The appellant was arrested in this case. He was also medico-legally examined by PW2 Dr. C. Paul who opined that the appellant was fit to perform sexual intercourse. After investigation the appellant was challaned in this case as stated above. The appellant was initially charged under section 376/342 Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Neeru Kalra, PW2 Dr. C. Paul, PW3 Dhan Singh, PW4 Siri Bhagwan ASI, PW5 Sant Lal, PW6 Pinky alias Tanu, PW7 Kajal, PW8 Des Raj Aggarwal and PW9 Baljit Singh. Affidavits Ex.PG of Munshi Ram Head Constable and Ex.PH of Sita Ram Constable and report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PK were also tendered in evidence. 5. The appellant had denied all the allegations and the plea taken by him was of implication on the ground that Des Raj was doubting the illicit relations of the appellant with his wife. 6. After recording the entire evidence, the appellant now stands convicted under Sections 376/51 and 342 Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Suvneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. With their assistance I have also gone through the record. 8. Mr. Sharma very fairly submits that he does not want to assail the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and instead made a prayer for reduction in the quantum of sentence. Developing his arguments on this count, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present occurrence relates to the year 1989 and at that time, the appellant was of the age of 21 years; he subsequently got married and is now having three minor children; the appellant remained in custody for about 8 months and 24 days; he has already faced the ordeal of protracted trial of long 14 years and in case at this juncture he is sent back to serve his remaining part of substantive sentence, it would certainly affect his family life. An affidavit of the appellant has also been tendered today in the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. Mr. An affidavit of the appellant has also been tendered today in the Court by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. Mr. Sharma then contends that Pinky is also married by now and is staying happily with her husband. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Sharma prays for a lenient view in regard to quantum of sentence. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies upon Shankar Tukaram Ursal v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 Crl. L.J. 476, Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1983(2) C.L.R. 659 and Ajaib Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1985(2) C.L.R. 703. 9. Refuting the arguments advanced by Mr. Sharma, the State Counsel submits that the appellant does not deserve any leniency as the allegations against him are of very serious nature. 10. Although Mr. Sharma has not assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on merits, yet I have gone through the entire evidence and the impugned judgment and I do not find any infirmity in the same so far as conviction of the appellant is concerned and the same is hereby maintained. 11. I, however, find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. As stated above by the learned counsel for the appellant that Pinky (prosecutrix) has got married by now and that the appellant also got married after his sentence was suspended by this Court and is having three minor children, in my view sending the appellant in the jail after the lapse of 14 years would amount to reopening the chapter once again. It would not only affect the present set up of the family of the appellant but would also reflect upon the married life of Pinky the prosecutrix as well who must have been well settled in her matrimonial home by now. 12. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case and that the appellant has already faced the ordeal of protracted trial besides he remained in custody for about nine months, the ends of justice would be adequately met if this sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. However, the amount of fine to the tune of Rs. 200/- under section 376/511 Indian Penal Code is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. However, the amount of fine to the tune of Rs. 200/- under section 376/511 Indian Penal Code is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant shall deposit this amount within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. In default of payment of fine, he would undergo RI for six months. In the event of the deposit of the said fine, the same would be given to Des Raj, the complainant by the trial Court at once. Resultantly, except with the modification in the quantum of substantive sentence and fine as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.