Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 522 (PNJ)

Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-21

T.P.S.MANN

body2010
Judgment T.P.S.MANN, J. 1. The appellant alongwith Jasvir Singh was tried by Additional Session Judge, fatehgarh Sahib for an offence under Sec.376 (2) (g) IPC with the allegations that on 20.5.1999 both of them committed rape upon the prosecutrix who was aged 12 years. Vide judgment and order dated 13.11.2002, the trial Court acquitted jasvir Singh of the charge against him on the ground that the prosecutrix, while deposing as PW6, did not implicate him. However, the appellant was held guilty under Sec.376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further RI for two months. 2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by Darshan Singh, father of the prosecutrix, wherein he stated that on 20.5.1999 when he returned home, his wife told him that their daughter, i. e. the prosecutrix, accompanied by another girl went out on that day at about 3.00 P. M. to the fields of Jawala Singh to pluck raw mangoes, where both the accused came and after gagging the mouth of their daughter forcibly took her to the sunflowers field and committed rape upon her one after the other. The friend of the prosecutrix came running and informed the mother of the prosecutrix and the latter then went to the spot and found her daughter lying unconscious. The prosecutrix was brought home, where after regaining consciousness she narrated about the occurrence. 3. After recording of the formal FIR in Police Station Khamanon, the investigation was taken up by Inspector Karamjit Singh, who first recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses and then prepared site plan ex. P14. Subsequent investigation was conducted by ASI Jaspal Singh, who arrested Jasvir Singh accused on 29.5.1999 and Kuldeep Singh accused on 1.6.1999. After completion of the investigation, final report under Sec.173 cr. P. C. was submitted against the accused. It being a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib committed the same. On 23.10.1999, both the accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Sec.376 (2) (g) IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution had examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Dr Charanjit Singh, PW2 Dr. Avinash Kaur and pw11 Dr. Jaspal Singh deposed about the medical evidence. On 23.10.1999, both the accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Sec.376 (2) (g) IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution had examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Dr Charanjit Singh, PW2 Dr. Avinash Kaur and pw11 Dr. Jaspal Singh deposed about the medical evidence. PW3 Kuldeep Singh proved School Leaving Certificate Ex. P8 in support of the prosecutrix wherein her date of birth was reflected as 5.2.1986. PW4 Darshan Singh, PW6 the prosecutrix and PW7 Rajinder Kaur testified about the prosecution case in so far as the prosecutrix being forcibly taken by the accused and the accused committing rape upon her. The investigation part of the case was deposed to by pw8 Inspector Paramjit Singh, PW9 ASI Jaspal Singh, PW12 ASI Piara Singh and pw13 Constable Fakir Singh. The prosecution also examined PW10 Charan Singh, who proved his report Ex. P20, wherein it stood mentioned that the birth record for the years 1985 to 1987 in respect of the prosecutrix was not traceable. 5. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , both the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded their false implication. In their defence, they examined DW1 Sawarn Singh, DW2 Lachhman Singh DW3 DSP Gurpreet Singh, DW4 nawal Kishore and DW5 SI Ajaipal Singh. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was aged 12 years on the date on occurrence, and, in any case less than 16 years of age. The testimonies of the prosecutrix on the one hand and her parents on the other, were relied upon so as to hold the appellant guilty of the charge under Sec.376 IPC. As mentioned above, the co-accused of the appellant was acquitted in view of the fact that while appearing as PW6, the prosecutrix did not implicate him at all. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance. 8. As per the School Leaving Certificate Ex. P8, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 5.2.1986. As per the ossification test report, the age of the prosecutrix was less than 12 years. To the same effect were the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her father. 8. As per the School Leaving Certificate Ex. P8, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 5.2.1986. As per the ossification test report, the age of the prosecutrix was less than 12 years. To the same effect were the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her father. Thus, there is no option but to conclude that the prosecutrix was 12/13 years of age on the date of the occurrence. 9. While appearing as PW6, the prosecutrix stated that it was the appellant, who had taken her forcibly to the sunflowers field, where he committed rape upon her. There is no material on the record as to why the prosecutrix, who was just a child, would depose falsely against the appellant. Her testimony is corroborated by her father PW4 Darshan Singh and mother PW7 Rajinder Kaur. The medical evidence fully supported the prosecution case about the appellant having committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The Chemical Examiner vide its report Ex. P19 found semen on four out of the five swabs and also on the salwar of the prosecutrix. Absence of any external injury on the person of the prosecutrix is meaningless in view the prosecutrix being less than 16 years of age. Accordingly, the appellant was righly convicted for the offence under Sec.376 IPC. 10. As regards the sentence, the appellant was found committing rape upon a young girl of the age of 12/13 years. Therefore, sentence of RI for ten years and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Sec.376 cannot be said to be excessive. 11. In view of the above, there is no merit in appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed.