Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.147-SB of 2003 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.147-SB of 2003
Date of decision: April 27, 2011.
Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Punjab
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri H.S. Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Shri Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate, Punjab
for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):
Present appeal has been filed by Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha s/o Hari Singh who was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.127 dated 4.11.1999 registered at Police Station Rampura under Sections 363, 366-A IPC. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC vide its judgment dated 17.12.2002nd vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced as under:-
U/s 363 IPC - RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months.
U/s 366-A IPC - RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Crl. Appeal No.147-SB of 2003 -: 2 :- Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. In the present case, FIR was lodged on the statement Ex.PC made Mohinder Singh PW2. He stated that he was resident of village Gill Kalan and was employed as a Security Guard in State Bank of India, Mandi Dabwali. Complainant was father of five daughters out of whom two elder daughters were married and three were unmarried. One daughter Kamaljit Kaur @ Kauri aged about 16-17 years had failed in the 10th Class. At the time of occurrence, she was going to Community Centre in the village for learning stitching/embroidery. She used to go daily to the said centre at 9 a.m. and return to home at 12 noon. On 3.11.1999, the complainant had come to the village after taking leave from the Bank. Till about 2 p.m., his daughter Kamaljit Kaur had not returned from the stitching centre. On an enquiry, Lachhman Singh teacher told that the girls had left the centre at about 12 noon. Complainant was returning to his house. On the way he met his brother Teja Singh who told that Kamaljit Kaur had accompanied Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha on bi-cycle and they were going towards Mandi Rampura. Engagement of said Sukhdev Singh had been performed by the complainant with the daughter of his brother-in-law (wife's brother), therefore, the accused Sukhdev Singh used to visit his home. Thereafter, the daughter was not traceable. Complainant went to the house of the accused from where he learnt that Sukhdev Singh had left his house with some money and clothes. A suspicion was raised that Kamaljit Kaur has been allured by accused Sukhdev Singh. Thereafter, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was furnished and the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.Crl. Appeal No.147-SB of 2003 -: 3 :-
Prosecution commenced its evidence. Dr. Pushpinder Kaur Sandhu PW1 stated that on 12.11.1999, she was posted as a Medical Officer at Rampura Phul and she had medico-legally examined Kamaljit Kaur, daughter of Mohinder Singh, aged about 17 years. She had found no mark of injury on the body of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had given history of repeated intercourse for the last one and a half year with her consent.
Complainant Mohinder Singh appeared as PW2. He stated that he was employed in the State Bank of India, Mandi Dabwali. He had five daughters. His daughter Kamaljit Kaur was known as Kauri. At the time of occurrence, she was aged 16-17 years. She was under-matriculate. In the year 1999, she was getting training in sewing in village Gill Kalan. On 3.11.1999, she left the home and did not return. Accused was arrested on 12.11.1999. In cross examination, this witness stated that he had given the school certificate of his daughter to the police on 13.11.1999. Teja Singh appeared as PW3. He stated that on 3.11.1999 at about 11.45 a.m., he was coming from Mandi Rampura Phul after selling milk. When he was about to enter the village Gill Kalan, he had seen accused Sukhdev Singh along with Kamaljit Kaur going on a bi-cycle. Kamaljit Kaur appeared as PW4.
She stated her date of birth as 30.3.1984 or it could be 30.3.1983. She further stated that the accused had threatened her to accompany him and he had also shown a knife and due to fear, she accompanied the accused on a bi-cycle. Then she travelled with the accused to Lucknow.
This Court need not to refer the evidence of other witnesses. The trial court gave a finding that date of birth of the prosecutrix was 29.4.1982. A reliance was placed upon the document Ex.PW7/A which is a certificate issued by the Education Department, Crl. Appeal No.147-SB of 2003 -: 4 :- Punjab. The prosecutrix had left the house on 3.11.1999, therefore, she was on that date of the age of about 17 years, six months and a few days. The appellant has not been charged for the offence under Section 376 IPC. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it has come on record that the prosecutrix had left the village along with the appellant on a bi-cycle. Thereafter, she travelled to Lucknow. At the time of medical examination, she had given history of continuous sexual intercourse. Thus, the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse, therefore, the prosecution has not come forward to press the charge under Section 376 IPC against the appellant. Thus, it can be safely inferred that there was a love-affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix. Both being young and of impressionable age, could not comprehend the consequences of their act. They lacked necessary maturity.
Counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Saggu, DIG-cum-Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has undergone 1 year 9 months and 28 days actual sentence as on today. Occurrence pertains to the year 1999. A period of more than 11 years has elapsed. Considering the totality of the circumstances, i.e., protracted trial, antecedents of the appellant and the nature of offence, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant behind the bars. Hence, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, i.e., 1 year 9 months and 28 days.
With the aforesaid observations, present appeal is disposed of.
[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] April 27, 2011. Judge kadyan