Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 293 (UTT)

Satnam Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

2013-05-31

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2013
Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 28.07.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 2002, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellants Satnam Singh, Preetam Singh and Mula Singh (since died) under Section 376 of I.P.C., and each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. All the three accused/appellants have been further convicted under Section 506 of I.P.C., and each one of them has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on that count. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3) Prosecution story in brief is that PW1Jaswant Kaur and accused/appellants Satnam Singh and Preetam Singh belong to the same Village Tukari. Accused/appellants Mula Singh (since died) is the relative (son in law of the sister of the accused Satnam Singh and Preetam Singh) who used to live in Village Sunkari. PW2 Prem Kaur is daughter of the informant PW1 Jaswant Kaur. It is alleged by PW1 Jaswant Kaur in the First Information Report (Ex. A1) that on 16.08.2002, at about 9.00-10.00 p.m. accused Preetam Singh took PW1 Jaswant Kaur and her daughter PW2 Prem Kaur to his house. It is admitted to the informant (Jaswant Kaur) that both the parties are neighbours. It is further alleged by the informant that in the house of Preetam Singh, his brother accused Satnam Singh and their relative Mula Singh were also present. It is further alleged by the informant (Jaswant Kaur) that she was told by the accused/appellants Satnam Singh and Preetam Singh that since her son Chinder Singh has committed rape on their niece Meera Bai, as such, they would take the revenge by committing rape on the informant and her daughter. It is further alleged by PW1 Jaswant Kaur that accused Preetam Singh and Satnam Singh raped her and accused Mula Singh raped her daughter PW2 Prem Kaur. It is further alleged that the three accused/appellants after threatening the victims of dire consequences, left them. 4) The First Information Report (Ex. It is further alleged by PW1 Jaswant Kaur that accused Preetam Singh and Satnam Singh raped her and accused Mula Singh raped her daughter PW2 Prem Kaur. It is further alleged that the three accused/appellants after threatening the victims of dire consequences, left them. 4) The First Information Report (Ex. A1) of the incident was got lodged by PW1 Jawant Kaur, after more than two days of the incident, on 19.08.2002, at Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. On the basis of said report Crime No. 341 of 2002, was registered at Police Station (Nanakmatta), relating to offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of I.P.C., against the three accused namely Satnam Singh, Preetam Singh and Mula Singh. The crime was investigated by PW5 Sub Inspector S.P. Singh Tomar. 5) During investigation, both PW1 Jaswant Kaur and PW2 Prem Kaur were medically examined by PW3 Dr. Shushma Negi, but no injury was found on their persons nor any positive opinion was given by said Medical Officer, regarding commission of rape. On radiological examination, the age of PW2 Prem Kaur was found to be between 16-18 years. 6) After investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants Satnam Singh and Mula Singh for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 376/506 of I.P.C. A separate charge was filed against the accused Preetam Singh for his trial in respect of the similar offences (punishable under Section 376 and 506 of I.P.C.). 7) The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet appears to have committed both the cases to the court of sessions for trial, and all the accused/appellants were tried together in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 2002. On 16.12.2002, after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, framed charge for commission of rape of Jaswant Kaur and threatening her, i.e. punishable under Section 376 and 506 of I.P.C., against Preetam Singh and Satnam Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. A separate charge was framed against the accused Mula Singh, in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. (regarding commission of rape on Prem Kaur) and one punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C., to which, said accused also pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8) Prosecution got examined PW1 Jaswant Kaur (informant and victim), PW2 Prem Kaur (victim) PW3 Dr. 8) Prosecution got examined PW1 Jaswant Kaur (informant and victim), PW2 Prem Kaur (victim) PW3 Dr. Sushma Negi (who medically examined the victim), PW4 Sub Inspector U.R. Arya and PW5 Sub Inspector S.R. Singh Tomar. 9) Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that there is a property dispute between the parties, due to which, they have falsely been implicated in the case. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of I.P.C., against all the three accused and convicted them accordingly. After hearing on sentence, each of the convicts namely Satnam Singh, Preetam Singh and Mula Singh (since died) was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 376 of I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 506 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said order dated 28.07.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 2002, this appeal was preferred by the convicts. 10) Before further discussion, it is relevant to mention here that the age of PW1 Jaswant Kaur is stated to be 35 years, and that of PW2 Prem Kaur found between 16-18 years. The two alleged victims are said to be related as mother and daughter. It is also relevant to mention here that the accused/appellants Satnam Singh and Preetam Singh are real brothers, who are sons of Avtar Singh of Village Tukari. The third accused Mula Singh (since died) is also relative of the other two accused (he is son in law of sister of the two accused). 11) It is argued on behalf of the appellant that it is highly unnatural that the two real brothers with their son in law would commit rape in the manner suggested by the prosecution with the mother and daughter living in their neighbourhood. In this connection, it is contended that since there was enmity between the neighbours, as such, the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. In this connection, it is contended that since there was enmity between the neighbours, as such, the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. On going through the testimony of PW1 Jaswant Kaur and PW2 Prem Kaur, this Court is of the view that the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be said to be without substance, and the story of rape, in the present facts and circumstances, appears to be unnatural. It has come in the statement of PW1 Jaswant Kaur that accused Preetam Singh had mortgaged her land in order to obtain loan for purchasing the tractor, which suggests that the parties had enmitical relations. 12) Attention of this Court is also drawn to the fact that the First Information Report ( Ex.A1) itself shows that the informant has alleged that since against her son a case of commission of rape of niece of the accused Satnam Singh and Preetam Singh had been lodged, as such, the accused wanted to take revenge. In this connection, it is submitted that it cannot be ruled out that since the son of the informant Jaswant Singh was implicated in the case of rape said to have been committed against the niece of the present appellants Preetam Singh and Satnam Singh, as such, to take revenge PW1 Jaswant Kaur got implicated the present appellants in the present case of rape, which according to the appellants is a false one. 13) On going through the contents of the First Information Report read with the disclosures, which have been made in the cross examinations of the two star witnesses PW1 Jaswant Kaur and PW2 Prem Kaur, this Court is of the view that the above contention of learned counsel for the present appellants cannot be discarded, as a lame defence and possibility of the false implication of the present appellants cannot be ruled out. 14) It is pertinent to mention here that there is no mark of injury found on either of the two victims by PW3 Dr. Sushma Negi, as such, there is no corroboration of story of rape from the medical evidence on record. 14) It is pertinent to mention here that there is no mark of injury found on either of the two victims by PW3 Dr. Sushma Negi, as such, there is no corroboration of story of rape from the medical evidence on record. 15) Also, it is relevant to mention here that though PW1 Jaswant Kaur (informant and victim) has named one Minder and one Pappu as witnesses of incident, but none of them were got examined on behalf of the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. 16) There is yet another significant fact apparent from the record, which creates doubt in the prosecution story is that Ex. A11 memorandum of recovery of SALWAR shows that this was made on 18.08.2002, while First Information Report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station on 19.08.2002, whereafter investigation started. This further indicates that the present accused/appellants might have been falsely implicated in the case. 17) In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offences punishable under Section 376 or that of 506 of I.P.C. against any of the accused namely Satnam Singh, Preetam Singh and Mula Singh (since died). 18) Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar) in Sessions Trial No. 411 of 2002, in respect of offences punishable under Section 376 and 506 of I.P.C. is here by set aside. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2003, also stands set aside. All the three accused/appellants are acquitted of the charge. (Accused/appellants Mula Singh said to have been died, during the pendency of the appeal). Accused/appellants Satnam Singh and Preetam Singh are on bail. They need not surrender. Lower court record be sent back.