Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 969 (PNJ)

Karan Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-07-16

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2003
JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - The appellants have filed an appeal against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The appellants were charged under Section 376 read with Sections 511/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1989"). 2. The prosecution case is that on January 17, 1993 at about 2.00 P.M. Sushila along with Kamla had gone to the fields of Bhup Singh for cutting grass. While they were cutting grass, accused Karan Singh and Mai Ram came to the fields. It has been further alleged that appellant Karan Singh inflicted injuries with fist blows on Sushila breaking her tooth. He also broke open the string of her salwar. Appellant Mai Ram caught hold of Kamla and took her to Sarson field. On hearing their cries, Suresh and Rambir came to the rescue of Kamla and Sushila. 3. Prosecution, to prove its case, produced PW-1 Ram Singh, PW-2 Dr. Ram Chander, PW-3 Sub Inspector Subhash Chander, PW-4 Assistant Sub Inspector Banwari Lal, PW-5 Head Constable Ram Kumar, PW-6 Sagar Dutt, PW-7 Sushila, PW-8 Dr. T.C. Tanwar, PW-9 Kamla, PW-10 Assistant Sub Inspector Sampat Ram and PW-11 Suresh. 4. PW-8 Dr. T.C. Tanwar, medico-legally examined Sushila on February 7, 1993 and he, in his report, stated that the lower lateral incisor tooth and mobile central incisor of lower jaw on the left side, was missing. 5. PW-2 Dr. Ram Chander examined Sushila on February 9, 1993 and stated that there were injuries on the face and lips of Sushila. 6. PW-7 Sushila narrated the version what was stated in the First Information report. Her testimony was corroborated by PW-10 Assistant Sub Inspector Sampat Ram and PW-11 Suresh. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State, and have gone through the record. 8. The statements of PW-7 Sushila, PW-9 Kamla and PW-11 Suresh corroborate each other. Further corroboration comes to the statements of Sushila and Kamla by the statements of PW-2 Dr. Ram Chander and PW-8 Dr. T.C. Tanwar. 8-A. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report. In fact, there is no delay. Further corroboration comes to the statements of Sushila and Kamla by the statements of PW-2 Dr. Ram Chander and PW-8 Dr. T.C. Tanwar. 8-A. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report. In fact, there is no delay. In such like case, members of the family, especially the prosecutrix, for the sake of not being dishonoured in the eyes of the general public, do not want to narrate the story at an early stage and time is taken to convince and encourage the prosecutrix to come forward and lodge the First Information Report. Similar is the situation in this case. 9. Delay has been explained by Sushila in her testimony, where she has stated that her husband went to the Sarpanch and other villagers. The Sarpanch assured her, that the faces of the accused will be blackened and they will be paraded in the village. A Panchayat was called where the family of the accused was also present and it was agreed that the accused be punished by blackening their faces, but this was not done. Ultimately, Sushila lodged the First Information Report. 10. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted and sentenced them under Sections 354 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989. 11. No offence is made out against the accused under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989. The mere fact that the ladies belonged to Scheduled Castes, does not itself warrant that the appellants should be punished under the Act of 1989. The complainant and her companion were molested, as they were women, but not because of the fact that they were women belonging to Scheduled Castes. No offence is made out against the accused under the aforementioned Act. 12. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the accused by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 is set aside and both the accused are acquitted under this Act. 13. No offence is made out against the accused under the aforementioned Act. 12. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the accused by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 is set aside and both the accused are acquitted under this Act. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Naresh v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports 610 (P&H), wherein this Court had held that rape was not committed by accused because of being a Scheduled Caste girl or with a view to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 will not apply. 14. He has further drawn my attention to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 117 (SC), wherein the Honble Supreme Court had held that where there was no evidence that accused committed the offence on the ground that deceased was a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, Provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 are not attracted. This Act is attracted only when the victim is person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 15. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated May 21, 1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on the conviction of the accused under Sections 354 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Conviction of the accused is, accordingly, sustained. Sentence awarded to the accused is on higher side, which is reduced to the period already undergone. With the above modifications, appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.