Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 December, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011
Date of decision: December 17, 2012.
Ranpreet Singh
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Punjab
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri APS Deol, Senior Advocate with
Shri Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Gurinderjit Singh, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
By way of the instant appeal, Ranpreet Singh appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 3.9.2011 and the order of sentence dated 5.9.2011 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 493 IPC to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo further RI for three months, under Section 494 IPC to undergo RI for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further RI for a period of two months, and under Section 376 IPC to undergo RI for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 2 :- period of six months. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The criminal law was set into motion on a complaint dated 30.5.2008 moved by Amandeep Kaur to DIG, Patiala Range, Patiala which led to registration of case FIR No.338 dated 19.9.2008 at Police Station Tripari, Patiala under Sections 494, 493, 418, 376, 506 IPC. In the aforesaid complaint, Amandeep Kaur stated to the effect that she was permanent resident of House No.102, Guru Nanak Nagar, Badungarh. In the year 2005, her family started residing in the house of Ranpreet Singh on rent. Since father of Amandeep Kaur was suffering from prolonged illness, parents of Ranpreet Singh proposed her parents for an alliance of Ranpreet Singh and Amandeep Singh by projecting that being unmarried, he was eligible for marriage. Having convinced regarding the marital status and antecedents of Ranpreet Singh, parents of Amandeep Kaur consented to their marriage and thereafter, their marriage was solemnized on 20.1.2006 at Gurdwara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patiala according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the parties started cohabiting as husband and wife at House No.307, Gali No.1, Dashmesh Nagar, Tripari, Patiala.
It is further alleged in the aforesaid application that four months prior to moving of the said application, a woman came to the house of Amandeep Kaur and disclosed her name as Inderjit Kaur, who proclaimed herself to be the wife of Ranpreet Singh and mother of a minor son born from the loins of Ranpreet Singh. When confronted with this situation, Ranpreet Singh admitted that he had concealed the factum of earlier marriage and demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs from the complainant to settle Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 3 :- the dispute with his previous wife Inderjit Kaur. According to the complainant, an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs was handed over to Ranpreet Singh and Ranpreet Singh then told her that after settling the matter with Inderjit Kaur, they will start residing together again. The complainant then came back to her parental house and waited for four months for a response from him. But when he started evading their phone calls, the instant application was moved to the police authorities which led to registration of the present FIR.
Upon investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate wherefrom, upon committal, charges under Sections 494, 493, 376, 418, 506 IPC were framed against the appellant by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Amandeep Kaur, PW2 Dr. Sunita Bansal who had conducted medical examination of Amandeep Kaur on 5.10.2008, PW3 Dr. Saryu Gupta who had conducted the monographic examination of Amandeep Kaur on 6.10.2008, PW4 Surjit Kaur, mother of the complainant, PW5 Constable Jagtar Singh, PW6 ASI Sohan Singh, PW7 SI Satnam Singh who registered the FIR, PW8 HC Faqir Singh, PW9 DSP Manjit Singh, who conducted an inquiry and submitted his report dated 25.6.2008 in pursuance to application moved by the complainant, and PW10 Inderjit Kaur to prove the factum of her marriage with the accused on 7.5.2001. Besides the above witnesses, the prosecution also examined Photographer, PW11 Baljinder Singh, who took the snaps of the alleged marriage between Amandeep Kaur and Ranpreet Singh and PW12 Shri P.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 4 :- Bathinda who had recorded the statement of Amandeep Kaur under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 8.10.2008. He proved the application moved by the local police Ex.PW12/A, statement of Amandeep Kaur Ex.PW12/B, zimny orders dated 7.10.2008 and 8.10.2008 Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D. PW1 Amandeep Kaur reiterated the allegations levelled by her in the complaint in her testimony while appearing as a prosecution witness and her mother duly corroborated the same while appearing as PW4. PW11 Joginder Singh Photographer duly proved the photographs Ex.P1 to P15. All other prosecution witnesses are of formal nature.
After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence was put to him, to which he denied and alleged false implication. He denied having contracted marriage with the prosecutrix as well as the allegation that he was having any relationship with the prosecutrix or cheated her. He has alleged false implication at the instance of the complainant and her mother in order to grab his property. He also pleaded to have filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the complainant for recovery of Rs.1,35,000/- which she allegedly extorted from him, recovery of blank papers on which his signatures were obtained and jewellery of gold ornaments which she took away from his ailing mother. The accused also alleged that the complainant is the President of Mahila Mandal and had threatened the accused of false implication.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty, as afore-stated, however, no offence was held to have been Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 5 :- made out against him under Section 418 IPC. The trial court appears to have inadvertently omitted to give its opinion as regards the offence under Section 506 IPC, however, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same is not of much significance as far as the fate of this case, in the light of the evidence available on record, is concerned.
The learned trial court, in its lengthy self-speaking judgment has delved into the ingredients of the offences under Sections 493, 494 and 376 IPC and the corresponding evidence on record while returning its findings. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to refrain itself from discussing and appreciating the entire evidence once again. There is no dispute as regards the previous marriage of the appellant with Inderjit Kaur, held in the year 2001, in view of statement of PW10 Inderjit Kaur and the accused appellant himself.
The appellant has advanced an argument that he did not marry the prosecutrix and never had any relationship with her. But in the opinion of this Court, in view of the categoric assertion of PW1 Amandeep Kaur supported by the testimony of her mother PW4 Surjit Kaur, duly corroborated by PW11 Joginder Singh photographer, who has proved the photographs Ex.P1 to P-15, taken by him at the time of the marriage and their negatives, which depict the complainant in wedding attire beside the appellant, prove beyond any iota of doubt that the appellant had contracted marriage with the complainant according to Sikh rites and ceremonies which fulfilled the requirements of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant could not assail the veracity of these photographs and could not impute any ill motive on the part of the photographer Joginder Singh Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 6 :- who had taken those photographs. Lot many people were present in the photographs at the time of alleged marriage. After perusing the photographs, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court as regards the marriage of the parties, who have solemnized the marriage according to the Sikh rites and ceremonies. Even if for the sake of argument, as has been propounded by learned counsel for the appellant, it is presumed that there is no valid marriage between the parties and hence offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out and the offence, if any, will be made out under Section 494 IPC, i.e., bigamy, is concerned, and given some credence, even then the appellant cannot escape his liability for the offence under Section 376 IPC inasmuch, as the ingredients of Section 375 Fourthly IPC and Section 493 IPC are akin to each other. Section 375 Fourthly IPC fastens the liability for the offence of rape upon the accused if he knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Similarly, the essential ingredients of Section 493 IPC are that the accused caused the woman in question to believe that she was lawfully married to him and that the accused induced that women to cohabit with him under that belief. Another, additional ingredient of Section 493 is that he caused that belief in that woman by deceit. Therefore, in these circumstances, even if the appellant denies to be the husband of the complainant, still he is liable under Clause Fourthly of Section 375 IPC as well as under Section 493 IPC because the consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with her was only under the belief that he was her husband whereas, under the provisions of law it being a second marriage of the appellant with the Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 7 :- prosecutrix, was void ab initio. But the prosecutrix consented to have sexual intercourse with the appellant under misconception of fact that she was legally wedded wife of the appellant. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out as there was no valid marriage between the parties, is misconceived and untenable. The fact that the appellant perpetrated deceit upon the prosecutrix in order to make her cohabit with him is writ large from the document Ex.D1 produced by him in his defence based upon which he took the plea that the prosecutrix knew about his marital status, which essentially means that there was deceitful intention in his mind since inception. The element of 'consent' pales into obscurity in the peculiar circumstances of the case wherein the prosecutrix had no occasion or reason to exercise consent when she was under the belief that she was the legally wedded wife of the appellant.
Another argument which was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant was that though there were many other people in the alleged marriage but none of them, except the prosecutrix and her mother, have been examined. In the opinion of this Court, this argument of learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any merit. This Court reminds itself of the principles propounded by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments wherein it has been categorically held that conviction even on uncorroborated solitary statement of the prosecutrix is legal. The findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal, 2011(2) SCC 550 are relevant in this context. The Court in para 19 of the judgment has observed as follows:-
"19. In the backdrop of the above legal position, with which Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 8 :- we are in respectful agreement, the evidence of the prosecutrix needs to be analysed and examined carefully. But, before we do that, we state, as has been repeatedly stated by this Court, that a woman who is victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness. The testimony of prosecutrix, if found to be reliable, by itself, may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. In prosecutions of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by way of abundant caution that court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and rule out any false accusations. ..."
Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
No other meaningful argument could be advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court firmly affirms the findings returned by the learned trial court based upon critical and minute appreciation of the entire evidence on record and the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court on the issues arising in this case.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 -: 9 :-The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of sentence.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] December 17, 2012. Judge kadyan