Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2432 (PNJ)

Kaptan v. State Of Haryana

2010-08-25

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 1.6.2002 and order of sentence dated 14.6.2002 (hereinafter as `impugned judgment) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat (hereinafter as `trial Court), whereby the accused appellant stands convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Section 452 and 376 IPC and has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 376 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 452 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the present case, as set up in the impugned judgment, are that on 10.2.2001, at about 11.00 pm, when Smt. Murti widow of Jai Parkash, aged 35 years, labourer, was sleeping in her house along with her son, namely Manoj and daughter Rekha, the accused entered her house under the influence of liquor. On seeking him, Smt. Murti asked him as to why he had come to her house to which the accused threatened her to kill if she raised an alarm. Thereafter, the accused caught hold of her and broke the string of her Salwar and committed rape on her person. When she raised voice, her children got up. Smt. Murti Devi ran out from the room and bolted the room from outside while the accused remained inside the room. She called several persons including Ramdia, Ram Chander and Roshni, etc. in whose presence, the accused was taken out from the room, however, he managed to escape from the spot. 3. On 11.2.2001, prosecutrix-Murti Devi approached the village Sarpanch in the morning hours and narrated the whole story, but the village Sarpanch refused to take any action against the accused. Feeling aggrieved, she went to the house of her father and narrated the entire story to him whereupon, she along with her father, went to the police station to report the matter. Feeling aggrieved, she went to the house of her father and narrated the entire story to him whereupon, she along with her father, went to the police station to report the matter. The police party met her at the Bus stand of village Badwasni, where she made the statement Ex.PA to the police. Her medical examination was then got conducted by the police. She also handed over one Salwar and Jamphar to the police, which she was wearing at the time of the commission of offence. 4. Investigations were completed, prosecutrix was got medically examined by the police and the accused was arrested and was also sent for medico-legal examination. 5. Charge under Sections 452 and 376 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, Murti, widow of Jai Parkash, as PW-1; Constable Balraj Singh as PW-2; Manoj son of Jai Parkash as PW-3; H C Jagdish Chander as PW-4; C Jagdish Chander as PW-5; HC Jagjeet Singh as PW-6; Dr. Manju Arora, General Hospital, Sonipat, as PW-7; Premo wife of Tara Chand as PW-8; HC Rajinder Singh as PW-9; ASI Kila Singh, Investigating Officer, as PW-10 and Dr. R L Tehlan as PW-11. 7. Thereafter the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while putting all the incriminating circumstances against him in the prosecution evidence wherein he denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. In defence, he produced Ramdia as DW1; Ram Chander son of Manglu as DW2; Roshni wife of Tara as DW3; and Chhatter Singh son of Dharam Singh as DW4. 8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence and term as indicated at the outset in para 1 hereinabove. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, vide Crl. Misc. application No. 41828 of 2010 has placed on record a compromise executed on 2.8.2010 duly signed by the mother of the prosecutrix and the accused along with other witnesses. According to the compromise dated 2.8.2010, the parties have stated that all the disputes and differences have already been resolved and there is no ill- will or any sense of grievance left between the parties on any count whatsoever. According to the compromise dated 2.8.2010, the parties have stated that all the disputes and differences have already been resolved and there is no ill- will or any sense of grievance left between the parties on any count whatsoever. Parties have decided to bring an end to all their disputes and differences and to live peacefully in future and maintain friendly relations between them. 10. Vide affidavit dated 2.8.2010 attached with the Crl. Misc. application, Murti Devi wife of Jai Parkash, in para 3 has stated that it was decided that a petition be moved in this Court for getting the accused person acquitted in the present appeal. 11. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the execution of compromise dated 2.8.2010. Learned counsel for the complainant has also made a statement that he has no objection if the appellant is acquitted on the basis of said compromise. 12. Since the parties have resolved all the disputes and decided to live happily, therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceeding further against the accused-appellant. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in view of the compromise dated 2.8.2010 and the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. 14. Since the main appeal is decided as such, the misc. applications pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.