Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 486 (PNJ)

Amar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-04-04

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Amar Singh stands convicted under Section 376 IPC vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sangrur dated 30.7.1997 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. 2. Mr. Mann states that as per the latest information received by him, the appellant after serving out his entire sentence was released from the jail in the month of February, 1999 as he had also availed of some remissions. The learned State counsel admits this fact and places on record latest certificate of Central Jail, Patiala dated 29.3.2005 informing that the appellant was released from jail on 27.2.1999 after completing his entire sentence as he was given the remissions of one year, 03 months and 23 days. The said certificate is taken on record. 3. Although the appellant has served his entire sentence yet Mr. Mann joins issue on merits and states that the case of the prosecution is not proved to the hilt against the appellant. Developing his arguments, Mr. Mann contends that the prosecutrix was of the age of more than 16 years but the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in this regard. He then contends that the evidence of the main witness is discrepant on many material points. The effect of which would be that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt. He then contends that the plea raised by the appellant has also been rejected by the trial Court without any reason. 4. The learned State counsel has, however, controverted the submissions made by Mr. Mann and states that the appellant has no escape from his liability. 5. I have once again rescanned the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for both the sides and am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyondany shadow of reasonable doubt. 6. The case of the prosecution starts with the recording of the statement of the prosecutrix who was a student of 5th class. Her name is intentionally not being disclosed. Her statement was corroborated by Om Parkash PW7, an eye-witness. 6. The case of the prosecution starts with the recording of the statement of the prosecutrix who was a student of 5th class. Her name is intentionally not being disclosed. Her statement was corroborated by Om Parkash PW7, an eye-witness. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that the appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and then threatened her of dire consequences in case she disclosed the fact to anybody. She then states that the incident was seen by Om Parkash also reiterates the prosecution case as disclosed by prosecutrix. PW8 Charan Dass is the father of the prosecutrix who proves her date of birth as 10.8.1982. He has also talks about the incident as told to him by the prosecutrix. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur PW9 is the teacher of Govt. High School, Uppali Chathe Sekhwan, who has proved relevant entry regarding the admission of the prosecutrix. The said entry is Ex. PW9/A in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is shown as 10.8.1982. I hate also gone through the statement of ASI Sukhdev Singh PW12 who is the Investigating Officer of the case. I do not find any infirmity in the statement of the prosecutrix or Om Parkash on any material aspect. Some minor discrepancies have certainly occurred in their statements but those have no material bearing on this case. 7. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, I find that the prosecution has placed on record the reliable evidence to the effect that her date of birth is 10.8.1992. Even from the attendance register Ex. D1 produced in defence, the date of birth comes around 12 years. Even if some error of 2/3 years is taken in the records, even then the prosecutrix could not be more than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence. She has otherwise stated in her statement that on the date of occurrence she was studying in 5th class. There is no reason otherwise to disbelieve the date of birth which was proved by Smt. Bhupinder Kaur PW9. From the aforesaid evidence available on the record, it is amply clear that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of occurrence. 8. The appellant has taken up plea that he is the President of Bhakhra Powers Employees Union and he used to speak against senior officers of the department including Mr. Bhatia, the Executive Engineer. From the aforesaid evidence available on the record, it is amply clear that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of occurrence. 8. The appellant has taken up plea that he is the President of Bhakhra Powers Employees Union and he used to speak against senior officers of the department including Mr. Bhatia, the Executive Engineer. The complainant party used to work at the house of Sh. Bhatia and at his instance, the appellant has been falsely implicated. In defence one witness has been produced to prove Attendance Register of the School, Ex. D 1 wherein the prosecutrix has been shown as present in the school on 4.11.1993 and therafter she remained absent. 9. In my view, the defence plea is neither here nor there and it cannot advance the case of the appellant even by an inch. 10. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant to the hilt for the charge of Section 376 IPC. 11. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 12. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, as stated above, the appellant has already served his entire sentence and as such no further order is required to be passed. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.