Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 21 May, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : May 21, 2010
Harpal Singh and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate
Mr. P.S. Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
T.P.S. MANN, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby appellant Harpal Singh was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellant Fateh Singh was convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -2- rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
According to the prosecution, on 30.9.1994 at 12.30 p.m. the prosecutrix got recorded her statement to the effect that on that day her husband Prem Singh had gone to the village school to cast his vote and she herself went to the field of Jit Singh to fetch chari fodder for her cattle, which field her husband had taken from Jit Singh for that purpsoe. At about 10.00 a.m. on finding her alone, appellant Harpal Singh came there and dragged her forcibly into the field. He forcibly untied the string of her salwar and committed rape upon her despite her resistance and raising alarm. After appellant Harpal Singh had committed rape upon her, appellant Fateh Singh came there, took her in an embrace and kissed her. On an alarm raised by the prosecutrix, her husband was attracted to the spot. On seeing him, both the appellants ran away. She narrated the entire incident to her husband. When the prosecutrix alongwith her husband was going to the Police Station to lodge the report, ASI Balbir Singh met them near the veterinary dispensary, where she lodged the report. ASI Balbir Singh recorded her statement Ex.PC and made his endorsement Ex.PC/2 thereupon. On the basis of the same, formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was recorded by MHC Jagir Singh.
Further case of the prosecution was that on 30.9.1994 Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -3- at 3.30 p.m., the prosecutrix was got medico legally examined from Civil Hospital, Rajpura. Rough site plan Ex. PE of the place of occurrence was prepared. Appellant Harpal Singh was arrested on 20.10.1994, whereas appellant Fateh Singh on 27.10.1994. Appellant Harpal Singh was got medico legally examined and as per report Ex. PA he was found fit to perform sexual intercourse. On 4.11.1994, ASI Balbir Singh also got prepared scaled site plan Ex. PD of the place of occurrence. As per Chemical Examiner's report Ex. PJ, the semen was found present on the salwar, shirt and dupatta of the prosecutrix and also on the slides of secretions taken from the posterior cervix of the prosecutrix. After completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. Following commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, appellant Harpal Singh was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 376 IPC whereas appellant Fateh Singh under Section 354 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr.Rajiv Gupta, PW2 Dr. Savita Dhavan, PW3 the prosecutrix, PW4 Jaspal Singh, Patwari, PW5 Prem Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, PW6 MHC Jangir Singh and PW7 ASI Balbir Singh. The report Ex.PJ of Chemical Examiner was also tendered into evidence.
Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -4- When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants pleaded innocence and false involvement due to party faction. In defence, they examined Mam Raj as DW1 and Surjit Singh as DW2.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.
The prosecutrix, who was a married lady and aged about 30 years when she stepped into the witness-box as PW3, had deposed that she had gone to the fields of Surjit Singh for bringing fodder and was carrying a sickle with her. The time was around 10.00 a.m. When she started cutting the fodder, appellant-Harpal Singh came there. He snatched sickle from her and threatened her that in case she raised an alarm, she would be done to death with the sickle. He forcibly untied the string of her salwar and despite her resistance, raped her. Thereafter, appellant-Fateh Singh came and hugged and kissed her. The hue and cry raised by her attracted her husband to the place of Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -5- occurrence. A lalkara was raised by him, whereupon both the appellants ran away from the place of occurrence. In cross- examination, she stated that the village school, where her husband had gone to cast his vote of Block Samiti, was towards the east of the village abadi, whereas the field, where she was cutting the fodder was towards the west. There were fields of other land owners around the fields of Surjit Singh. At that time, other farmers were also working in the nearby fields. She also deposed that she did not state in her statement Ex.PC that appellant Harpal Singh had snatched the sickle from her and also threatened to kill her in case she raised hue and cry. She went on to volunteer that she had stated so in her supplementary statement. When further cross-examined, she testified that she was dragged from the place where she was cutting the fodder. She was dragged only for a short distance. However, to the police she had stated that she had been dragged over 7-8 karms. On that day she was wearing glass bangles on her wrist which were got broken when she was dragged. She had pointed to the police about the broken pieces of the bangles. When she was raped she had offered resistance. The rape was committed in 5-6 minutes. Her salwar remained in her legs when she was raped. Despite the fact that she continued raising an alarm, no person from the nearby fields came to the spot on hearing the same. Regarding Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -6- appellant-Fateh Singh, she deposed that he kept hugging and kissing her for about three minutes and by that time, she had tied the string of her salwar. He had also fondled her breasts.
Similarly, PW5 Prem Singh-husband of the prosecutrix, testified that he had purchased chari crop measuring 1 bigha from Surjit Singh for Rs.700/-. Though he had gone to cast his vote yet on account of rush, he could not do so and when he came to the chari fields in order to help his wife to carry the reaped chari and was still at a distance of 1 killa, he heard the raula and cries of his wife. He raised a lalkara and challenged as to who was there. At this, both the appellants ran away from the chari field. He tried to chase them over some distance but remained unsuccessful. When he came back to his wife in the field she told him that Harpal Singh had raped her whereas Fateh Singh had outraged her modesty. In cross-examination, he deposed that no blood had fallen in the field where rape had been committed. The trampled crop was standing at the place where rape had been committed. The trampled crop was almost equal to the area of one cot. The trampled crop was shown to the police. He noticed that there were scratch marks on the legs, arms, breasts and back of his wife but no blood had oozed out. He stated that the place of occurrence was about 1¼ kilometers from the polling booth and he had left the house for polling booth Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -7- at about 9.00 a.m. and reached the place of occurrence at about 10.00 a.m. In contrast to the testimony of the prosecutrix and her husband, PW2 Dr. Savita Dhawan deposed that she had conducted medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix on 30.9.1994 at 3.30 p.m. On examination, she found that there was no mark of any injury on any part of the body. She was fully conscious and moderately built and nourished. On local examination, no mark of any injury on labia majora or the labia minora was found.
Similarly, PW7 ASI Balbir Singh testified during his cross-examination that there was no mark of violence/injury on the person of the prosecutrix. No sickle was taken into possession from the fields in question. No other article was found in that field. The prosecutrix did not show any pieces of bangles nor he took the same in possession.
From the above evidence, it is absolutely clear that the prosecutrix had consensual intercourse with Harpal Singh appellant. If it was not so, the prosecutrix ought to have been severely bruised on account of her being dragged from the place where fodder had been cut to a place at a distance of 7-8 karms Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -8- where she was allegedly subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Neither the doctor, who had medico-legally examined the prosecutrix soon after the alleged occurrence, nor the police officer i.e. ASI Balbir Singh, who had recorded her statement Ex.PC, had noticed any mark of breaking of bangles or struggle made or resistance offered by the prosecutrix. Even the bangles which the prosecutrix was said to have been wearing at the time of the occurrence and said to have been broken on account of her being forcibly dragged in the field were not recovered from the said place. It appears that when her husband had gone to cast his vote for the Block Samiti and she had an occasion to go to the field for bringing the fodder, she came across appellant-Harpal Singh with whom she had consensual sex. It was only when the husband of the prosecutrix came too soon to that field as he could not cast his vote because of rush that he must have surprised them and in order to show her bonafides, the prosecutrix came up with a trumped up version of having been dragged by Harpal Singh and, thereafter, subjected to rape.
According to the prosecution, appellant Fateh Singh was servant of the family of appellant-Harpal Singh. Possibility cannot be ruled out that because of the said fact the prosecutrix might have levelled false allegations against appellant Fateh Singh, especially when no mark of any injury on any part of body Criminal Appeal 997-SB of 1998 -9- of the prosecutrix was found by PW2 Dr. Savita Dhawan. This is in sharp contradiction with the testimony of PW5 Prem Singh, husband of the prosecutrix when he had stated that there were scratch marks on the legs, arms, breasts and back of his wife.
As a result of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of Harpal Singh appellant under Section 376 IPC and of Fateh Singh appellant under Section 354 IPC. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. The amount of fine, if already paid by the appellants, be refunded to them.
( T.P.S.MANN )
May 21, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1