Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 957 (PNJ)

Gurnam Singh S/o Balasa Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-05-15

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J 1. This appeal was filed by Gurnam Singh, appellant, who died during the pendency thereof, and Smt. Sudesh, his widow, moved an application for her impleadment as appellant, which was allowed, vide order dated 21.11.2005. She was, thus, permitted to pursue the appeal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.09.1995, and the order of sentence dated 26.09.1995, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which it convicted Gurnam Singh, accused, (since deceased), as under :- Name of the The offence for Sentence awarded accused (now which conviction was appellant) recorded. Gurnam Singh U/S.377/511 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for five years. Fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergorigorous imprisonment for one month. Gurnam Singh U/S 354 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years. Fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergorigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences of the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The FIR was registered, on the basis of the statement of Anuradha,(P.W.-1), wife of Kewal Krishan, resident of Village Dorangla, Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, at the relevant time, resident of House. No.315/75, Purana Gadda Khanna, Press Road, Patiala. It was stated by her that she alongwith her daughter, the prosecutrix, aged about 6 years (name being not mentioned in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court ) had been residing as a tenant, in a room, in the house of Amar Nath Gupta, in the locality, named as Purna Gadda Khanna, Patiala. Accused, Gurnam Singh, who was married, at that time, to the sister of said Amar Nath Gupta, had also been residing, in another portion of the same house. The husband of Anuradha, (PW-1), was not in a fit mental condition, so he was residing, at his native village Dorangla, District Gurdaspur, while she alongwith her sons Vimal Kumar and Amol and daughter , (the prosecutrix), had been living in the ancestral house of Amar Nath Gupta, at Patiala. She was employed in M/s Sohan Hosiery, Darjianwali Gali, Patiala. Her son was employed in M/s Bombay Crockery, Patiala. On 27-5-1994, she and her son Vimal Kumar went to their respective duties. At about 7.00 p.m., they returned to their house. The prosecutrix,(PW-2), told her, that in the afternoon, Amol had gone to the house of Parveen to bring kerosene. She was employed in M/s Sohan Hosiery, Darjianwali Gali, Patiala. Her son was employed in M/s Bombay Crockery, Patiala. On 27-5-1994, she and her son Vimal Kumar went to their respective duties. At about 7.00 p.m., they returned to their house. The prosecutrix,(PW-2), told her, that in the afternoon, Amol had gone to the house of Parveen to bring kerosene. The prosecutrix was left alone in the house. Smt. Sudesh, wife of Gurnam Singh, accused,(since deceased) had gone with her children to the Bazar. Gurnam Singh, accused,(since deceased), called the prosecutrix to his room. He inserted his penis, into her mouth, and then tried to insert it into her anus. Some white fluid discharged from the penis of Gurnam Singh. Then he stopped the attempt. He threatened her that, if she disclosed the incident to anybody, he would commit her murder, and the murder of her mother and brothers. On hearing this, Smt. Anuradha, became highly frightened. Due to the sense of shame, she did not disclose the incident to anybody. On 29-5-1994, her brother Vijay Kumar, came to see her, and she narrated this occurrence to him. Her brother accompanied by her and the prosecutrix, went to Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. Smt. Anuradha,(PW-1), made the aforesaid statement, before the Police, on the basis whereof, Daily Diary Report was recorded in the Roznamcha on 29.05.1994. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination on the same day i.e. 29.05.1994. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, on 30-5-2009, in which, she narrated the version, stated above by her mother. She further stated that Gurnam Singh, accused made her to lie down and tried to insert his penis into her private parts and into her anus. She further stated that when white fluid discharged from his penis, he stopped his attempt. On the basis of the aforesaid DDR, the FIR, was recorded. On 30-5- 1994, the prosecutrix was referred to the Surgical Unit of Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where she was again medicolegally examined by the Surgeon. She was also subjected to radiological examination, for determination of her age. On the pointing out of the prosecutrix, Amarjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan, with correct marginal notes. The opinion of the Chemical Examiner was also obtained. The Certificate Ex. She was also subjected to radiological examination, for determination of her age. On the pointing out of the prosecutrix, Amarjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan, with correct marginal notes. The opinion of the Chemical Examiner was also obtained. The Certificate Ex. PR, from the Principal of S.D.S.E. Senior Secondary School, Patiala, where the prosecutrix, was studying in nd Standard, about her date of birth, was obtained. On 1-6-1994, Amarjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, arrested Gurnam Singh accused (since deceased). On 02.06.1994 Gurnam Singh, accused, (since deceased), was got medico-legal examined from the Medical Officer, who opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. Inderish Khanna, Draftsman, prepared the scaled map of the place of occurrence. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 4. On his appearance, in the Committing Court,the accused was supplied the copies of all the documents,relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 376/511 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against Gurnam Singh, accused (since deceased), to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Smt. Anuradha, complainant, mother of the prosecutrix, (PW-1), who deposed in terms of the prosecution version, as stated above while narrating the facts of the case, the prosecutrix, (PW-2), who also made a statement in consonance with the statement of Anuradha, complainant, her mother and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the course of investigation, Dr. Atul Gupta, Medical Officer, (PW-3), who examined Gurnam Singh, accused (since deceased) on 02.06.1994 and submitted his report Ex.PB/1, Dr. Kulwinder Singh Sohal, Medical Officer, (PW-4), who examined the prosecutrix, aged about 7 years on 30.05.1994, Dr. Sunita Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, (PW-5), who also medicolegally examined the prosecutrix, Dr. Amrit Pal Singh, Senior Lecturer Department of Radiology, (PW-6), who radiologically examined the prosecutrix to determine her age, Dr. Kulwinder Singh Sohal, Medical Officer, (PW-4), who examined the prosecutrix, aged about 7 years on 30.05.1994, Dr. Sunita Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, (PW-5), who also medicolegally examined the prosecutrix, Dr. Amrit Pal Singh, Senior Lecturer Department of Radiology, (PW-6), who radiologically examined the prosecutrix to determine her age, Dr. Deepak Walia, Senior Lecturer,Department of Forensic Medicine,(PW-7), who also examined the prosecutrix, Indrash Khanna, Draftsman, (PW-8), who prepared the scaled map, Shiv Om son of Bal Kishan, (PW-9), before whom the accused made an extra judicial confession regarding his misconduct with the prosecutrix on 01.06.1994 and who produced him before the Police, as a result whereof he was arrested and Amarjit Singh, Sub Inspector/Investigating Officer,(PW-10). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State , tendered into evidence, original report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PT. Thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that the prosecutrix,aged about 7 years, alongwith her mother and brothers, was living in a portion of the same house, in which he and his wife were residing. It was admitted by him that his medical examination was conducted. The remaining allegations, were denied by him. He took up the following plea:- “I am employed in PSEB. My duty hours are from 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM. On 27.05.1994, I had left my house at about 8.30 AM to attend the office. I came back from my official duty at about 6.00 PM. My wife Sudesh is the owner of the house, in which I am living with her and my children, and also of the portion, which is on rent with Anuradha, PW. Anuradha is a tenant under my wife Sudesh. Anuradha had not paid the rent for the last four years. Myself and my wife have been demanding the rent from her but she never paid. On this score, there had been many quarrels with Anuradha. On 28.05.1994, we i.e. I and my wife, again demanded the arrears of rent from Anuradha and there was a quarrel between us. Anuradha threatened me to implicate in a false case and that she would teach me a lesson for demanding the rent. On this score, there had been many quarrels with Anuradha. On 28.05.1994, we i.e. I and my wife, again demanded the arrears of rent from Anuradha and there was a quarrel between us. Anuradha threatened me to implicate in a false case and that she would teach me a lesson for demanding the rent. I and my wife told her that an ejectment application shall be filed, if she did not pay the rent to us. On account of this, our relations with Anuradha had become inimical and due to the said reasons, Anuradha had involved me in this false case.” The accused examined Smt. Kamla Jindal, Teacher, SDSE Senior Secondary School, Patiala, DW-1. After tendering into evidence Ex.DA, copy of the bail order, he closed the defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Gurnam Singh, accused,(now deceased), as stated hereinbefore. 8. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by Gurnam Singh, appellant. During the pendency of appeal, he died and his widow Sudesh was impleaded as appellant, vide order dated 21.11.2005, and permitted to pursue the appeal. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that there was unexplained delay of two days, in lodging the first information report, which was utilized by the complainant, to falsely implicate the accused, concoct the story, and introduce false witnesses. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The occurrence, in this case, took place, on 27.05.1994 at about 4.30 PM. The statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, was recorded, on 29.05.1994. On the basis of the said statement, a Daily Diary Report was recorded . Ultimately, on the basis of the said DDR, the FIR was recorded on 29.05.1994. The father of the prosecutrix, was not residing at Patiala, as his mental condition was not proper. He was residing at his native village Dorangla, District Gurdaspur. On the basis of the said statement, a Daily Diary Report was recorded . Ultimately, on the basis of the said DDR, the FIR was recorded on 29.05.1994. The father of the prosecutrix, was not residing at Patiala, as his mental condition was not proper. He was residing at his native village Dorangla, District Gurdaspur. Anuradha, mother of the prosecutrix, alongwith the prosecutrix and other family members, was residing in a portion of the house of Amar Nath Gupta. Anuradha, complainant, being a poor lady, was maintaining her family by working hard. The accused was residing, in one portion of the house. The crime was committed by the accused, in the privacy of his own house. The incident involved not only the reputation, and the honour of the child victim, but of the family too. Anuradha, mother of the prosecutrix, (PW-1), in her statement, in clear cut terms stated that, as soon as, she returned to her house, after doing the work, at about 7.00 PM, on 27.05.1994, her daughter disclosed the incident to her, but on account of the sense of shame, she did not narrate the same to anybody, including her relations. It was further stated by her, that on 29.05.1994, when her brother came to meet her, she told the incident to him, who took her to Kotwali Patiala, and she made a statement, on the basis whereof, DDR was recorded in the Roznamcha. In such like sexual offences, the parents of the victim think a number of times, before lodging the report. Since the honour of the child victim, as also of the family was involved, the mother and the brother of the prosecutrix must have thought a number of times before going to the Police Station. They very well knew that, in case, the allegations were found to be false or were not proved, they would be looked down upon in the society and even the chances of the marriage of the child victim,shall become bleak. There was no reason, on the part of the prosecutrix, or her mother to falsely implicate the accused, in the instant case. No mother could stake the honour of her minor daughter aged about 7 years just for the sake of it.Thus, the delay in lodging the first information report, stood explained, from the circumstances, referred to above. In State of Punjab Vs. No mother could stake the honour of her minor daughter aged about 7 years just for the sake of it.Thus, the delay in lodging the first information report, stood explained, from the circumstances, referred to above. In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, 1996(1) RCR 533 (SC), the parents of the victim of rape, reported the matter, in the first instance, to the village Panchayat, and when the Panchayat failed to provide any relief, the FIR was lodged thereafter. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the delay stood properly explained. It was also held that,in sexual offences, the delay in lodging the FIR, could be due to a variety of reasons, particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix, or family members to approach the police, and lodge complaint, about the incident, which concerns the reputation and honour of the family and the victim. In State of Punjab Vs. Ramdev Singh, 2004(1) Crimes 149 (SC), rape was committed with a girl of 14 years. There was delay of 17 days, in lodging the report. The father of the prosecutrix, was seriously ill, and the family members did not want to create tension, in his mind, and waited for his recovery. In these circumstances, such explanation was accepted as correct, and the Supreme Court, held that the delay stood explained. In the instant case also, the delay in lodging the FIR, stood fully explained, from the circumstances and the evidence discussed above. Even otherwise, the evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother, duly corroborated by the medical evidence is cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy. In this view of the matter, even if, it is assumed, that there was unexplained delay, in lodging the first information report, that paled into insignificance. The delay, in this case, was not utilized to falsely implicate the accused , introduce false witnesses or concoct the story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the conduct of Anuradha, complainant, mother of the prosecutrix, as also of the prosecutrix, was most unnatural and improbable, in as much as Anuradha attended to her duty on 28.05.1994 i.e. the next day of the occurrence and left the prosecutrix alone in the house unattended. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the conduct of Anuradha, complainant, mother of the prosecutrix, as also of the prosecutrix, was most unnatural and improbable, in as much as Anuradha attended to her duty on 28.05.1994 i.e. the next day of the occurrence and left the prosecutrix alone in the house unattended. He further submitted that the incident was not disclosed by Anuradha to her colleagues. He further submitted that though the distance of the house of the real sister of Anuradha, could be covered within a few minuts, yet the matter was not disclosed to her. He further submitted that, as per the prosecutrix, after the occurrence, she went to the house of her mother's sister, but she did not disclose the incident to her. He further submitted that even she went for tuition, at a place, the distance whereof could be covered within five minutes, yet she did not disclose the incident to anybody. As stated above, the prosecutrix, at the relevant time, was aged about 7 years, she being a minor girl, did not know the intricacies of non-disclosure of the incident, immediately, to the aforesaid persons. No doubt, she disclosed the incident to her mother on 27.05.1994 when she returned from her duty. Out of sense of shame, Anuradha, complainant, did not disclose this incident to anybody except on 29.05.1994 when her brother came and she went alongwith him, to the Police Station and made a statement. Anuradha, complainant, did not want to make the incident public, as the same involved the honour of her minor daughter, aged about 7 years. The parents of a minor girl, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour.Even the prosecutrix, aged about 7 years,at the relevant time,must be feeling extremely embarrassed, in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame, on account of her upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo.In such like sexual offences, the natural inclination of the prosecutrix and her parents, would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident, lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. So, in these circumstances, if for two days, the mother of the prosecutrix, to whom the prosecutrix narrated the incident, did not disclose the same to others or the prosecutrix did not disclose to her mother's sister or to her friends, who were taking tuition with her, it could not be said that the conduct of both these witnesses was, in any way, unnatural and improbable. The trial Court was also right in holding so. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the trial Court, acted on the basis of incredible evidence to convict the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2. Before she was administered the oath, a number of questions, were put to her, as is evident from the record , by the trial Court, to adjudge her intelligence. The trial Court, after putting such questions and obtaining answers to the same, observed that it was satisfied that the child witness was sufficiently intelligent, and mentally developed, to be in a position to understand the questions and give replies. Thereafter, she was administered oath and examined as a witness. It was stated by her that about eight months, earlier to her statement, which was made by her on 06.02.1995, her mother had gone to the factory where she was working. Her elder brother had gone to work where he was employed and her younger brother had gone to the house of the sister of her mother, to bring kerosene. It was further stated by her that Gurnam Singh, accused was residing in the same house, in which she was residing with her parents. It was further stated by her that the wife of Gurnam Singh alongwith her children had gone to Bazar. She was all alone in the house. Gurnam Singh, accused, signalled her and called her to his own house. It was further stated by her that Gurnam Singh, accused opened her Kachhi and made her to lie. It was further stated by her that he inserted his penis into her mouth. She further stated that he inserted his penis into her vagina and anus. Gurnam Singh, accused, signalled her and called her to his own house. It was further stated by her that Gurnam Singh, accused opened her Kachhi and made her to lie. It was further stated by her that he inserted his penis into her mouth. She further stated that he inserted his penis into her vagina and anus. She further stated that thereafter some white fluid discharged from his penis. When she cried, he opened the door and let her go. It was further stated by her that he threatened her that if she told the incident to anybody, he would commit her murder, as also the murder of her mother and two brothers. It was further stated by her that thereafter she ran away to the house of mother's sister. It was further stated by her that when her mother came back, from the work, she narrated the entire incident. The statement of the prosecutrix was duly corroborated by Anuradha, her mother, to whom she narrated the incident on her return to the house. The evidence of Anuradha, PW-1, falls within the purview of res-gestae. Further corroboration is provided to the ocular version through the evidence of Dr. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Medical Officer, (PW-5), who medicolegally examined the prosecutrix on 29.05.1994 at 12.30 PM. She during the course of examination in-chief stated that a reddish lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.25 cm was found on the right anal wall. She further stated that no bleeding was present. She during the course of cross-examination stated that she examined her anal wall. She further stated that there was only one injury, on the person of the prosecutrix, and it was on her anal wall. She further stated that she did not examine the rectum and referred the patient for surgeon's opinion. Still further corroboration is provided to the ocular version, through the evidence of Dr. Kulwinder Singh Sohal, Medical Officer, (PW-4), who medicolegally examined the prosecutrix on 30.05.1994 and observed as follows :- “1.There is evidence of a perfiscial tear in the parianal skin and anal canal. 2. The tone of the anal sphincter is very much increased. 3. There is no injury to the rectum.” During the course of cross examination, it was stated by him that the injuries noted by him could be due to the penetration of penis into the rectum. 2. The tone of the anal sphincter is very much increased. 3. There is no injury to the rectum.” During the course of cross examination, it was stated by him that the injuries noted by him could be due to the penetration of penis into the rectum. He also clarified that the male active agent might not have been successful in making the penetration but these injuries could be caused by the attempt to make penetration with penis. Still further corroboration to the ocular evidence, is provided through the evidence of Dr. Deepak Walia, Sr. Lecturer, (PW-7). It was stated by him that there was history of buccal coitus but no positive findings of any buccal coitus was present. He further stated that there was history of penetration of anal area. He further stated that the injuries on this area, were consistent with the history. Still further corroboration is provided to the ocular version, through the statement of Shiv Om,(PW-9), before whom the accused made an extra judicial confession that he had committed misconduct with the prosecutrix. He was produced before the Police, when he was arrested. As stated above, there was no reason, on the part of the prosecutrix, and her mother, to falsely implicate the accused in the instant case. Even, no mother would stake the honour of her minor child by making false allegations. The ocular evidence, duly corroborated through the medical evidence and the statement of Shiv Om, before whom the extra judicial confession was made by the accused on 01.06.1994, was rightly held to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy by the Court below. It, therefore, could not be said that the Court below acted, on the basis of incredible evidence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that it was not safe to act on the statement of the prosecutrix, who was just aged about 7 years, as the chances of her being tutored, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. As stated above, before she was administered the oath, a number of questions were put to her as is evident from the record , by the trial Court, to adjudge her intelligence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. As stated above, before she was administered the oath, a number of questions were put to her as is evident from the record , by the trial Court, to adjudge her intelligence. The trial Court, after putting such questions, and obtaining answers, to the same, observed that it was satisfied that the child witness was sufficiently intelligent and mentally developed to be in a position to understand the questions and give replies. Thereafter, she was administered the oath, and her statement was recorded. No doubt, the evidence of a child witness is required to be scrutinized with care and caution, before it is acted upon, by the Court, to bring home the guilt to the accused. After careful and cautious scrutiny of the evidence of the child witness, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the evidence of such witness is voluntary, then no reason can be coined to disbelieve the same. The ocular evidence of the prosecutrix was not only duly corroborated by the medical evidence but also through the the evidence of Shiv Om. The trial Court was, thus, right in placing reliance on the same. The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on State of M.P. v. Bacchudas alias Balram and others (2007)3 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 87 to contend that since the prosecutrix did not disclose the occurrence to anybody immediately after the same took place, she could not be believed. The facts of the aforesaid case, are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid case, it was held that if the child witness did not disclose the occurrence, to anyone for six hours, it could not be said to be per se sufficient to render the prosecution version suspect. However, in the aforesaid case, the evidence of the child witness was not found to be credible, on account of a variety of reasons. It was, under these circumstances, that no reliance thereon was placed . In the instant case, as stated above, the evidence of the prosecutrix, has been found to be cogent, convincing and reliable. Since the facts of the aforesaid case, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the present case, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom. In the instant case, as stated above, the evidence of the prosecutrix, has been found to be cogent, convincing and reliable. Since the facts of the aforesaid case, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the present case, no help, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of Shiv Om , (PW09), before whom the accused allegedly made an extra judicial confession with regard to the commission of crime, being unreliable, could not be acted upon, but the trial Court was wrong in believing the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Gurnam Singh, accused ( since deceased ) went to Shiv Om, (PW-9) on 01.06.1994 and made an extra judicial confession, before him, that he had committed misconduct with the prosecutrix, daughter of Anuradha. He further told him that since he was having good relations with Anuradha and her brothers, he should save him. On the same day, the accused was arrested by the Police, when he was produced by Shiv Om, (PW-9). Shiv Om,(PW-9) was having good relations with Anuradha, mother of the prosecutrix, as he was knowing her for the last 2-1/2 years. He also stated that he knew two brothers of Anuradha. He also stated that he knew Gurnam Singh earlier. Since Gurnam Singh, accused ( since deceased ) knew that Shiv Om, (PW-9) was having good relations with Anuradha and her brothers, and could help him, he went to him and made the aforesaid extra judicial confession . The evidence of Shiv Om (PW-9) is credible. He was thoroughly cross-examined. During the course of cross-examination, nothing of consequence could be got elicited from his mouth, which may go to discredit his evidence. Even if it is assumed that Shiv Om had no influence with the Police that did not mean that the accused could not go to him to make an extra judicial confession on account of the reasons discussed above. Even if it is assumed that Shiv Om had no influence with the Police that did not mean that the accused could not go to him to make an extra judicial confession on account of the reasons discussed above. After the commission of crime, if the accused wants to make clean breast of his guilt, he would go to a person, who was having good relations with the complainant or his/her family members as he knows that they could help him. The evidence of Shiv Om before whom the extra judicial confession was made by the accused, therefore, could not be said to be in any manner, unreliable. He is a trust worthy witness. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, that the trial Court wrongly placed reliance, on the statement of Shiv Om, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that according to Smt. Kamla Jindal, DW-1, Teacher, SDSE, Sr. Secondary School, Patiala, the prosecutrix attended the school on 27.05.1994 and 28.05.1994. He further submitted that how then occurrence took place in the house of .Gurnam Singh, accused when the prosecutrix had gone to attend the School on 27.05.1994. It may be stated here that the occurrence took place on 27.05.1994 at about 4.30 PM, after the School hours when the prosecutrix had already returned to her house after the closure of the school. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not merit acceptance. The same, therefore, stands rejected. 16. The defence version, set up by the accused, was that he was falsely implicated on account of the reason, that Anuradha had not plaid rent for the last four years and when his wife demanded the same, she did not pay, as a result whereof a quarrel with her took place. The accused also set up the plea of alibi but could not successfully prove the same. The defence version and the defence evidence, produced by the accused was duly discussed, by the trial Court, in para Nos. 38,39 and 40. After due analysis of the defence version, and the defence evidence, produced by the accused, the trial Court came to the conclusion, that the same was unreliable. .Accordingly, the same was discarded. The defence version and the defence evidence, produced by the accused was duly discussed, by the trial Court, in para Nos. 38,39 and 40. After due analysis of the defence version, and the defence evidence, produced by the accused, the trial Court came to the conclusion, that the same was unreliable. .Accordingly, the same was discarded. This Court after re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the defence version, and the defence evidence, produced by the accused, also comes to the same conclusion. The trial Court, was right in disbelieving and discarding the defence version and the defence evidence, produced by the accused. 17. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 18. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed in the manner that the judgment of conviction dated 21.09.1995, is upheld, whereas the same (appeal) qua the order of substantive sentence, awarded to Gurnam Singh, (since deceased) abates, as he died during the pendency thereof. 19. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.