Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2082 (PNJ)

Hanuman alias Dholia v. State of Haryana

2015-11-19

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, S.S.SARON

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of Hanuman alias Dholia (applicant/appellant), during pendency of the appeal. 3. The prosecutrix aged 15 years and studying in Ninth class has alleged that she had gone to convenience herself on 26.02.2012 at around 12.00 noon. She was in the mustard field situated at some distance from her house. At that time five persons namely Kuldeep (accused No. 4), Kishan Pal alias Toni (accused No. 2), Ramesh (accused No. 1), Dalip (Proclaimed Offender) residents of village Bairan, Tehsil Loharu District Bhiwani and Hanuman (applicantappellant) resident of village Nunsar, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani forcibly lifted her. Kishan Pal alias Toni (accused No. 2) gagged her mouth. All the five persons dragged her to the fields of Randhir Sangwan. The string of her ‘Salvar’ was already open as she was to ease herself. They removed her ‘Salvar’ which got torn. 4. It is alleged that Kuldeep (accused No. 4) committed rape on her. While he was committing rape, Kishan Pal alias Toni (accused No. 2) had gagged her mouth and also pressed her hands. Dalip (Proclaimed Offender) was saying that after committing rape, she should be shifted from there otherwise she would inform at her house. Ramesh (accused No. 1) and Hanuman (applicant-appellant) were guarding them while rape was being committed on her by Kuldeep (accused No. 4). The remaining persons were holding out threats of dire consequences to her life and the life of her family members. 5. According to learned senior counsel for the applicant-appellant the role attributed to the applicant-appellant is that of dragging and guarding the victim and not of committing rape. It is submitted that this is the second application for bail filed by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence. The earlier application was dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 02.05.2014 and after that about 1½ years have lapsed. Another application for interim bail apart from the application for bail was also filed. It is submitted that the prosecution has set up a false case as the prosecutrix would not go to the mustard fields to ease herself as she has a toilet in her own house. Another application for interim bail apart from the application for bail was also filed. It is submitted that the prosecution has set up a false case as the prosecutrix would not go to the mustard fields to ease herself as she has a toilet in her own house. It is also submitted that there is an un-explained delay of 36 hours in lodging the FIR inasmuch as the occurrence took place on 26.02.2012 at 12:00 noon and the FIR has been registered on 27.02.2012 at 11:55 p.m. 6. It is submitted that according to statement of Dr. Shailley (PW-6), there is no external mark of injury seen on any part of the body of the prosecutrix even though it is stated that she had been dragged to a distance of 2-3 killas’ (acres) to the fields of Randhir Sangwan. It is stated that torn cloths of the prosecutrix were not recovered by the police. Even the blood stained clothes were not taken in possession. Dr. Shailley (PW-6) has deposed that there were no blood stained clothes on the person of prosecutrix. 7. According to learned counsel for the State, the case relates to gang rape of a minor girl. The applicant-appellant having been convicted in terms of Section 376 (2) (g) IPC (as it stood before amendment), is not entitled to be released on bail pending hearing of the appeal as he has committed a heinous crime. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. 9. The contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties, would require consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 10. According to the affidavit of Sh. Satvinder Kumar, Superintendent, District Jail Bhiwani; Hanuman alias Dholia (applicant-appellant) has undergone actual imprisonment of three years, four months and eighteen days as on 02.08.2015. By now he has undergone further imprisonment for about three and a half months. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as also the fact that the role of committing rape is not attributed to the applicant-appellant Hanuman alias Dholia, it would be just and expedient to suspend his sentence of imprisonment during pendency of the appeal. 12. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as also the fact that the role of committing rape is not attributed to the applicant-appellant Hanuman alias Dholia, it would be just and expedient to suspend his sentence of imprisonment during pendency of the appeal. 12. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of Hanuman alias Dholia (applicant/appellant) shall, during pendency of the appeal remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.