Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 438 (PNJ)

Jugraj Singh alias Kali v. State of Punjab

2004-04-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Jugraj Singh alias Kali and Surinder Singh alias Babbi were charged under sections 363, 366, 376, 342 Indian Penal Code and stand convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 3.12.1998 as under :- U/S 376 Indian Penal Code To undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year each. U/S 366 Indian Penal Code To undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each. U/S 363 Indian Penal Code To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months each. U/S 342 Indian Penal Code To undergo RI for one year each. All the sentences awarded to both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. 3. I am describing the prosecutrix as victim in the light of latest judgment rendered by Honble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 113 (SC). 4. In short the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix was studying in B.A. Part-I and was doing a Computer course at Faridkot where Jugraj Singh alias Kali appellant was also studying. Both of them used to travel together in the bus to Faridkot and back. On 1.8.1997, the prosecutrix had gone to Faridkot and did not come back. Her grandfather Gujjar Singh PW5 tried to trace her out in his relatives but could not know her whereabouts. He then made a statement Ex. P6 on 9.8.1997 before the police suspecting Jugraj Singh alias Kali and his friend Surinder Singh alias Babbi appellants had abducted his grand-daughter. On these allegations the present case was initially registered under Sections 363/366 Indian Penal Code. On 18.8.97, both the appellants were arrested from Bus Stand Talwandi Bhai and the prosecutrix was recovered from their possession. P6 on 9.8.1997 before the police suspecting Jugraj Singh alias Kali and his friend Surinder Singh alias Babbi appellants had abducted his grand-daughter. On these allegations the present case was initially registered under Sections 363/366 Indian Penal Code. On 18.8.97, both the appellants were arrested from Bus Stand Talwandi Bhai and the prosecutrix was recovered from their possession. She was medico legally examined, She made a statement to the effect that Jugraj Singh alias Kali appelllant was also coming back from Faridkot by bus on 1.8.97 and he took a seat adjacent to her and Surinder Singh alias Babbi appellant took a seat behind her. When they were about half a kilometre from Bus Stand Mudki where she was to get down from the bus, both the appellants threatened her that they will not allow her to get down from the bus and if she did, she would be insulted by them. It is then alleged that Surinder Singh appellant then sprayed some intoxicant on her face due to which she became unconscious and then they took her to a quarter near Railway Hospital, Ferozepur Cantt where she was kept for the night. Both the appellants did bad act (rape) with her and did not allow her to get out of the room. They threatened her with dire consequences saying that they were having some weapon with them. It is then alleged that on the next morning they boarded the train and reached Bombay where she was kept in a room in Prem Nagar Mohalla where also both of them had been doing bad act with her. She was threatened to be killed if she raised a raula. She was then brought back to Delhi. There also both the appellants raped her. Therefrom she was brought to Ferozepur. From Ferozepur she was being taken to Talwandi Bhai by bus and when they got down at the Bus Stand of Talwandi Bhai, the police was incidentally present there and arrested them. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code which is Ex. P8. After completion of the investigation, both the appellants were challaned in this case. 5. I have heard Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the record. 6. P8. After completion of the investigation, both the appellants were challaned in this case. 5. I have heard Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be safely said that the prosecutrix on her own had gone with the appellants and after staying with them for many days (18 days), she was apprehended by the police. From this evidence, according to the learned counsel, the consent can be inferred. 7. It is then contended that the story of the prosecution is suffering from many inherent infirmities which would speak volumes of the false implication of the appellants and as such they deserve acquittal. 8. The learned State counsel has refuted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and submits that the case of the prosecution has been proved to the hilt. 9. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against both the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. 10. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses in this case. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 4.9.81. The date of occurrence is 1.8.97. Thus, on the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was of the age of 15 years, 10 months and few days. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the date of birth. The prosecutrix has reiterated her statement which she made before the investigating agency on 18.8.97 and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. 11. No doubt there are certain discrepancies but the same do not weaken the case of the prosecutrix at all as she has no enmity with the appellants. There cannot be any reason to falsely implicate them also. It is proved to the hilt that she was below 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. The appellants had forced and seduced her to illicit intercourse against her will. 12. There cannot be any reason to falsely implicate them also. It is proved to the hilt that she was below 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. The appellants had forced and seduced her to illicit intercourse against her will. 12. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 533 (SC), the Honble Apex Court has held that the testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. In the instant case, the statement of the prosecutrix does not suffer from any weakness so as to discard it. 13. After rescanning the entire evidence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt against both the appellants for the charges framed against them. I, consequently, uphold the conviction qua both the appellants. 14. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence contending that maybe the age of prosecutrix was less than 16 years on the alleged date of occurrence but the facts of the prosecution case reveal that the prosecutrix herself had been moving with the present appellants for a considerable period. It is then contended that the prosecutrix had written many letters to Jugraj Singh which are mark A to F and this all goes to show that the prosecutrix was in fact having some relation with one of the appellants. According to the learned counsel this can be taken as mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellants so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. The other mitigating circumstance projected by the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the appellants were of the age of about 22 years at the time of alleged occurrence and they must have settled down in their life after getting married and would have reformed themselves. Likewise the victim might also have settled in her life and in these circumstances no useful purpose will be served by sending them to jail once again after the lapse of seven years. Likewise the victim might also have settled in her life and in these circumstances no useful purpose will be served by sending them to jail once again after the lapse of seven years. He then contends that the appellants remained in custody during trial and after conviction also. They were released on bail by this Court in August, 2000. Both the appellants, thus, have undergone substantial period of their substantive sentence which comes to three years. On the basis of aforesaid submissions the learned counsel prays that this Court should show some leniency in respect of quantum of sentence. 15. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram, 2000(3) RCR(Crl.) 752 (SC) and two judgments of this Court rendered in Mohinder v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) RCR(Crl.) 562 (P&H) and Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 773 (P&H). 16. This submission is also opposed by the learned State counsel. 17. The age of the prosecutrix on the date of incident was 15 years 10 months and 27 days. She was a student of B.A. Part-I. The facts of the case speak volumes of evil designs of both the appellants. Surinder Singh sprinkled some material to make the prosecutrix unconscious and thereafter she was taken to a particular place where both had committed bad act with her. She had fallen prey at the wolfish act of the present appellants being totally helpless. 18. In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1470, the Honble Apex Court observed that sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. 19. In Puttarajas case (supra) their Lordships have observed that a rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, chastity, honour and reputation. 20. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. 19. In Puttarajas case (supra) their Lordships have observed that a rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, chastity, honour and reputation. 20. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants do not come to their rescue. In Mango Rams case (supra) the accused and the prosecutrix were related to each other. The prosecutrix was of the age of about 13/14 years and the difference of the age with the accused was of 2/3 years and in that eventuality, the Honble Apex Court had reduced the sentence to the period undergone observing that members of both the families must have buried their hatchet. 21. The facts of other two judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are entirely distinguishable on facts. 22. In the present case although both the appellants have not been charged under section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code but the facts and circumstances do speak that prosecutrix was gang-raped in this case. However, while sentencing both the appellants, the learned trial Court has awarded the imprisonment of ten years which is minimum for the said charge. No doubt, the Court for adequate reasons can also reduce the minimum sentence but in the instant case, in my considered view, showing undue sympathy to the present appellants would do more harm to the justice system. It is the duty of the court to award proper sentence having regard to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 1994 SCC (Crl.) 358, it was observed by the Honble Apex Court that the imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the court responds to the societys cry for justice against the criminal. 23. To sum up, the sum total of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of any of the appellants which would call for slightest sympathetic tilt towards them with regard to quantum of sentence. The sentence already imposed by the trial Court, in my view, is most adequate. 24. Consequently, the present appeal fails on all counts and is hereby dismissed. 25. The sentence already imposed by the trial Court, in my view, is most adequate. 24. Consequently, the present appeal fails on all counts and is hereby dismissed. 25. The appellants who are on bail as their sentence was suspended by this Court, shall now surrender to custody to serve the remaining part of the substantive sentence awarded to them. Necessary steps to be taken in this regard. Appeal dismissed.