Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 790 (PNJ)

Jasvir Singh & Piara Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-02-03

A.N.JINDAL

body2010
JUDGMENT : A.N. Jindal, J. This judgment of mine shall dispose of aforesaid connected appeal Nos. 1721-SB & 1722-SB of 2002, filed by Jasvir Singh and Piara Singh respectively. 2. Jasvir Singh and Piara Singh appellants-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') and Kuljit Singh (deceased), having expired during trial, were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 450, 376, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for ravishing a married lady (herein referred as 'prosecutrix'), aged about 29 years on 05.02.1999, consequently, they were convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences as under:- Name of accused u/s Sentence Jasvir Singh and Piara Singh 342 IPC Sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months each. 376 IPC Sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. 450 IPC Sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. 506 IPC Sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each. 3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. On 05.02.1999 at about 3:30 p.m. after washing her hair, the prosecutrix was sitting in the courtyard; her son was lying asleep; her mother Sukhwinder Kaur had gone to the market and her neighbour Swaranjit Kaur was talking to her. In the meantime, Kuljit Singh accused, (who is son of her husband's maternal uncle) alongwith Piara Singh and Jasvir Singh accused came to her house in a jeep bearing registration No. DBB-9846. After parking the car, they entered the house and started talking to the prosecutrix whereas Swaranjit Kaur left. Thereafter, all the three accused dragged her in the back room of the house and tied her mouth with her chunni (dupatta). Kuljit Singh and Jasvir Singh accused bolted the door from outside while Piara Singh committed rape on her. Thereafter Kuljit Singh and Jasvir Singh also committed rape simultaneously. In the meantime, mother of the prosecutrix came and raised alarm, whereupon the accused, while giving threats, had fled away. On account of fear of threats, the prosecutrix and her mother did not move out of the house on 05.02.1999 and 06.02.1999 and lodged the FIR Ex.PA/3 at police Station on 07.02.1999. In the meantime, mother of the prosecutrix came and raised alarm, whereupon the accused, while giving threats, had fled away. On account of fear of threats, the prosecutrix and her mother did not move out of the house on 05.02.1999 and 06.02.1999 and lodged the FIR Ex.PA/3 at police Station on 07.02.1999. Case was investigated; statements of the witnesses were recorded; site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and on completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused vide order dated 28.09.1999. All the accused were charged for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Sarabjit Kaur complainant (PW1), Head Constable Sarabjit Singh (PW2), Sukhwinder Kaur (PW3), Dr. Sadhu Ram, (PW4), Dr. Gurdarshan Singh Johal (PW5), Dr. Kulwinder Kaur (PW6), Sub Inspector Jasvir Singh (PW7), Head Constable Gulzar Singh (PW8), Sub Inspector Gurcharan Singh (PW9), Constable Avtar Singh (PW10), Gursewak Singh, Draftsman (PW11) and Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh (Retired) (PW12). 6. When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in this case. They further explained that they were brought to the police station City Moga on the next day of occurrence and were shown to the prosecutrix, who refused to identify them, however, they had been falsely implicated in this case. No witness was examined in defence. The trial ended in conviction. 7. Arguments heard. It would be pertinent to mention here that the accused persons were not released on bail during trial. The affidavits submitted by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, dated 27.01.2010 reveals that the accused after undergoing the entire sentence (including remissions) were released from jail on 28.04.2007. None has come present to argue the case, therefore, Amicus Curiae has been appointed by this Court in order to assist the Court. 8. The affidavits submitted by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, dated 27.01.2010 reveals that the accused after undergoing the entire sentence (including remissions) were released from jail on 28.04.2007. None has come present to argue the case, therefore, Amicus Curiae has been appointed by this Court in order to assist the Court. 8. Amongst the multi fold contentions, as raised, first is that there is about the delay of two days in lodging the FIR, secondly, salwar allegedly stained with semen, neither was produced in the Court nor sent for chemical examination; thirdly, the prosecutrix is a married lady and she had her own motive to implicate the accused and there is no independent corroboration to her testimony, therefore, no reliance could be placed upon her lastly, it was contended that the medical evidence also does not support the ocular version. 9. Having heard the rival contentions and examined the testimony of the prosecutrix, Sukhwinder Kaur-complainant as well as medical evidence, it appears that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She has testified that she was forcibly dragged to the back room of her house. Firstly Piara Singh committed rape, thereafter Jasvir Singh and Kuljit Singh raped her while getting benefit of the absence of her mother. During cross-examination, she also stated that she continued struggling with the accused but she was overpowered, beaten and raped by them. She appears to have cleared the test of credibility, reliability and her testimony also stands corroborated by Dr. Kulwinder Kaur (PW6), who, during her medical examination, found six injuries including four scratch marks, two inches long, two inches below clavical on both sides of chest and two scar marks of nail bites on both the breasts. The medical evidence invites inference that the prosecutrix never wanted the accused to commit sexual intercourse but she was ravished brutally by the accused. Non sending of salwar in case of a married lady for chemical examination is hardly immaterial as the accused had put off her salwar whereas the chunni which was used by the accused for gagging her mouth was taken into possession. Delay of two days in this case is immaterial as in our tradition bound society, the family members refrain from putting their reputation at stake and try to settle the matter amicably. Delay of two days in this case is immaterial as in our tradition bound society, the family members refrain from putting their reputation at stake and try to settle the matter amicably. It may further be added that they did come out of the house out of fear and then she went to take her father and thereafter lodged the report. No plausible defence has been led by the accused in order to prove their innocence. No married lady would come forward to lodge false allegations after putting her own fame at stake and honour without enmity with the accused. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in case Moti Lal v. State of M.P., 2008 (3) RCR 796 wherein it was observed as under:- It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case. In the instant case, the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own prestige and honour. 10. As such, there is no reason to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix which stands corrobo rated by Dr. Kulwinder Kaur (PW6) in the medical evidence. Investigation has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer. 11. Resultantly, finding no merit in the aforesaid appeals, the same are dismissed.