Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2086 (PNJ)

Sher Singh v. State Of Haryana

2006-05-12

A.N.JINDAL

body2006
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Vinod Kumar, Sher Singh and Raj Kumar accused were tried under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Karnal for committing a rape upon Monika, a minor girl. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court while acquitting Vinod Kumar and Raj Kumar, convicted Sher Singh under Sections 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default to further undergo R.I. for six months. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to the prosecution of the accused are that when Monika was grazing cattle on the side of the canal, the accused came to her and forcibly took her in the pits by the side of the canal. Sher Singh showed a knife, removed her salwar, lifted the legs with his hands and attempted to commit rape upon her. However, on receiving hue and cry, Darshan Lal and Mohni arrived at the scene, as a result of which the accused ran away. 3. On statement of Monika FIR No. 399 dated 16.8.1993 under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at the Police Station, Sadar, Karnal. Consequently, the investigation was set in. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented. On conclusion of the trial, the accused Raj Kumar and Vinod Kumar were acquitted whereas Sher Singh was convicted. Hence, this appeal. 4. In order to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses namely : PW1 Dr. V.K. Sharma, PW2 Dr. G.S. Arora. PW3 Dr. P.K. Nigam, PW4 Dr. N.K. Bhardwaj, PW5 Monika, PW6 Kulwant Singh, Halqa Patwari, PW7 Dr. Subhita Ajmani, PW8 Darshan Lal, PW9 Kanta, PW10 Mohni and PW11 Randhir Singh. 5. On scrutiny of the statement of PW5 Monika and PW9 Kanta, the offence under Section 376/511 IPC against accused Sher Singh, stands fully proved. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence of Monika and other witnesses, rightly reached the conclusion that Sher Singh forcibly removed the salwar of Monika and attempted to commit rape upon her. The evidence of PW5 Monika and PW9 Kanta coupled with other evidence, is sufficient to hold that accused Sher Singh had attempted to commit rape upon Monika. Even otherwise the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction. 6. The evidence of PW5 Monika and PW9 Kanta coupled with other evidence, is sufficient to hold that accused Sher Singh had attempted to commit rape upon Monika. Even otherwise the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction. 6. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant before me is that the accused has already undergone the agony of trial since the year 1993. Therefore, in this view of the matter, it will be in the fitness of things, if some lenient view is taken. 7. Having examined the matter in depth, it is observed that the accused has been facing trial since the year 1993 when he was in his teen age, he was involved in the case. Much water has already been flowed. There are all chances that he may turn to be a good person. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentenced to one year and six months. However, sentence of fine will remain intact. 8. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with the modification of reduction of sentence to one year and six months R.I. However, sentence of fine will remain intact. 9. The accused is stated to be on bail. Necessary steps be taken to procure the custody of the accused for serving the remaining part of sentence.