Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1358 (PNJ)

Shyam Lal v. State Of Haryana

2008-08-12

K.C.PURI

body2008
Judgment K.C.Puri, J. 1. This is an appeal directed by the accused against the judgment dated 16.1.1995 passed by Sh. S.N. Chadha, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which accused Shyam Lal has been held guilty under Sections 363 and 354 IPC and whereas accused Ashok, Kapoor Singh and Ajit @ Jeeta have been held guilty under Section 363 IPC and have been sentenced till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. Out the amount of fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix. 2. Brief facts, as gathered from the record are that on 28.5.1994 at about 1.00 P.M. prosecutrix was taking bath under the cover of cot in her house situated in village Mehrana. Her mother Ramrati was feeding her younger brother Charan Singh in another room. Accused Shyam Lal, Ajit, Ashok and Kapoor Singh came to the house of Rajender and asked Ramrati if Rajender was in the house. Ramrati replied in the negative and told that Rajender was away to Dadri. In the meanwhile, the prosecutrix had dressed herself. Accused Jeeta bolted the door of the room where Ramrati was feeding her son. Accused Shyam Lal caught hold of the prosecutrix from her hands and pulled her and accused Ashok, Kapoor Singh and Jeeta also pushed her. The accused forcibly kidnapped the prosecutrix. She raised the alarm but to no effect as none came to rescue her. The accused lifted the prosecutrix and took her to the house of Ashok accused. Ashok and Kapoor Singh stood outside the gate of the house in order to guard any person entering into it. Accused Jeeta took the prosecutrix by her hands inside the room while accused Shyam Lal opened the string of her salwar and took out the same. Accused Shyam Lal also took out his pant and placed it aside and attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix. She raised alarm and resisted his attempt by her legs and hands. In the meanwhile, Ramrati came there. The door of the room where she was confined was opened by her younger daughter Suman and she set out for searching her daughter i.e. prosecutrix. She raised alarm and resisted his attempt by her legs and hands. In the meanwhile, Ramrati came there. The door of the room where she was confined was opened by her younger daughter Suman and she set out for searching her daughter i.e. prosecutrix. On seeing her, both accused-Ashok and Kapoor Singh escaped and Ramrati rescued her daughter from the clutches of Shyam Lal and Ajit. Shyam Lal wore his underwear and ran away carrying his pant. Jeeta accused also ran after pushing Ramrati. Ramrati lifted the prosecutrix and took her to her house. Rajender came on the next day and she narrated the whole occurrence to him. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against all the accused. Charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 read with Section 511 IPC were framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. H.L. Beniwal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Dadrai, PW-2, Bharpur Singh, Science Master, Govt. Middle School, Mehrana, PW-3 Narender Singh Yadav, Draftsman, Civil Courts, Charkhi Dadri, PW-4 prosecutrix, PW-5, Ramrati, PW-6 Hawa Singh, S.A., Office Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani, PW-7 Rajender Singh, PW-8 Siri Bhagwan SI and closed its evidence. 5. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. And all the incriminating evidence was put to them, which they denied. They have taken the stand that prosecutrix is also known by the name of Babli and she used to write love letters to Shyam Lal and had developed a liking for him. These letters came to the notice of her father who was under the impression that Shyam Lal has misguided his girl. This affair was not liked by her father. It is further stated by the accused that he belong to Dhanak community whereas the prosecutrix belongs to Chamar community. Just to teach a lesson, a false case has been registered against them. The prosecutrix was not living a moral life. The accused have relied upon the letters Mark A to V and have not lead any oral evidence. 6. It is further stated by the accused that he belong to Dhanak community whereas the prosecutrix belongs to Chamar community. Just to teach a lesson, a false case has been registered against them. The prosecutrix was not living a moral life. The accused have relied upon the letters Mark A to V and have not lead any oral evidence. 6. Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence on the record convicted the accused Shyam Lal under Sections 363 and 354 IPC and convicted the other accused Ashok, Kapoor Singh and Jeeta under Section 363 IPC and sentenced them till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, the accused have preferred the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact prosecutrix has love affair with Shyam Lal accused. Prosecutrix belongs to Chamar community, whereas the accused belong to Dhanak community and on that account their parents have not agreed. Letters Mark A to V placed on the file, prove the said fact. It is further submitted that other accused have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that all the accused have been acquitted under Section 366 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC. So, in these circumstances, the accused have been falsely implicated. Lastly, it has been submitted that the accused are of tender age and in these circumstances, they are entitled to benefit of probation. 9. Learned State counsel has submitted that it is a fit case in which punishment should have been more stringent, in view of the gravity of offence. However, since, the State has not preferred an appeal, on that count, he finds himself handicapped to raise this argument. It is submitted that offence under Sections 363 and 354 IPC is proved against Shyam Lal and under Section 363 IPC against the remaining accused. So, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. Learned State counsel has further submitted that gravity of offence does not make a case for the grant of probation. He further submits that prosecutrix was admittedly below the age of 18 years and as such offence of kidnapping stands proved against the accused. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 11. He further submits that prosecutrix was admittedly below the age of 18 years and as such offence of kidnapping stands proved against the accused. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 11. The argument advanced by the learned defence counsel does not carry any weight. The prosecutrix was admittedly below 18 years. From the evidence on the file, it is clear that she was taken away from the custody of her lawful guardian. Even if it is assumed that she has love affair with Shyam Lal, in that case also, the accused had no business to kidnap her from her house. The evidence on the file regarding her kidnapping has been proved. From the testimony of the prosecutrix, it is revealed that she has been forcibly kidnapped by the accused and taken to the house of Ashok. Ashok and Kapoor Singh stood outside the house to guard, whereas Jeeta caught hold of the prosecutrix from her both hands. Shyam Lal broke open the string of her salwar and took out her salwar. Shyam Lal also undressed himself and she has further stated that accused attempted to rape her but in the meanwhile, her mother came there. Although the trial Court has acquitted them under Sections 366, 376 and 511 IPC, but the allegations of the prosecutrix are that, Shyam Lal attempted to rape her. Since the State has not preferred an appeal, so in these circumstances, that aspect cannot be considered. Even the offence under Section 363 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for 7 years. Learned trial Court has already taken a very lenient view and has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court. Even, according to the trial Court, the offence under Section 354 IPC is also made out. So, in view of the gravity of the offence, no case is made out for granting the benefit of probation. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.