Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 August, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 14, 2013
Suraj and another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate,
for appellant No. 1.
Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate,
for appellant No. 2.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Suraj and Narinder Kumar, challenging their conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide the judgment of conviction dated 28.9.2001 and the order of sentence, dated 29.9.2001, whereby the following sentences were passed:-
Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 2 Name of the Under Sentence Fine In Default convict Section (in `) Suraj 366, IPC 7 years rigorous 3,000/ 6 months (appellant No. imprisonment - imprisonment
1) 376(2)(g), 10 years 5,000/ 1 year IPC rigorous - imprisonment imprisonment Narinder 376(2)(g), 4 years rigorous 2,000/ 6 months Kumar IPC imprisonment - imprisonment (appellant No.
2)
2. The substantive sentences of appellant No. 1, Suraj, were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of the case are that PW5-prosecutrix (name concealed as per the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court) was daughter of Mukhtiar Singh (PW-6). The prosecutrix along with her family members, was residing at Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, and appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, are real brothers. They were running an electric goods shop, which was situate in front of the house of the prosecutrix. Appellant No. 1 was frequent visitor to the house of the prosecutrix for repair of electric items. On 16.9.2000, at about 7.30 a.m., the prosecutrix, who was a student of 9th class, left her house for going to her school. Since she missed the school van, she started walking down on foot. When she reached underneath the railway flyover at Kurukshetra, appellant No. 1, Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 3 Suraj, came there while riding a scooter and asked the prosecutrix as to why she was proceeding on feet and the prosecutrix replied that she had missed the school van, therefore, she was going to school on feet. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, asked the prosecutrix to sit on the pillion of his scooter on the pretext that he was going towards the direction of her school and would drop her there. Instead of taking her to the school, appellant No. 1, Suraj, took her to his vacant house in Gandhi Nagar, Kurukshetra. He asked her to wait there for two minutes as he had some work at that place and thereafter asked her to come inside that house as he had still to stay there for 2-4 minutes. The prosecutrix went inside the said house and was made to sit on a bed in a room. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, offered a cold drink to her and on consumption of the same, she became drowsy. In the meanwhile, appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, elder brother of appellant No. 1, Suraj, also arrived there and the prosecutrix requested Narinder Kumar to drop her at her school as she was getting late, but appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, did not respond and went out of the room. Thereafter, the prosecutrix fell down on the bed. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, forcibly put off her salwar and committed rape on her and when she cried, he gagged her mouth. Thereafter, appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, again came inside the room and the prosecutrix complained to him that Suraj had committed rape on her. Appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 4 told that whatever was destined had happened and since appellant No. 1, Suraj, was still unmarried, he (Narinder Kumar) would arrange for their marriage. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, made the prosecutrix to drink yet another bottle of cold drink and on consumption of the same, she became unconscious. After 5-6 hours, she regained consciousness and on inquiry, appellant No. 1, Suraj, told her that they were at Haridwar and in case she narrated the incident to anyone, then he (Suraj) would kill her younger brother. On the next day, Suraj took her to a temple at Haridwar and when she tried to slip away, he threatened to kill her. Appellant No. 1 even applied 'Sindoor ' in her 'Maang'. On the next day, appellant No. 1 took the prosecutrix to yet another place known as Neelkanth and tried to kill her by electrocution, but he failed in his attempt. Thereafter, she was taken to Tulsi Ghat at Haridwar and when she started weeping then appellant No. 1 administered some poisonous substance to her by mixing the same in Jalzeera. On the next day, appellant No. 1, Suraj, brought her to Kurukshetra and dropped her at the railway station. There, the prosecutrix was spotted by her father, Mukhtiar Singh (PW-6). The police was there with her father. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, was arrested by the police.
4. In the interregnum, the father of the prosecutrix with the help of his family members searched for her, but in vain. Since appellant No. 1, Suraj, was not attending to his shop for 2-3 Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 5 days, therefore, the suspicion arose on him and on 18.9.2000, a report (Ex. PD) in this regard was lodged with SI Surinder Pal (PW-7). The statement of Mukhtiar Singh was sent to the Police Station, City, Thanesar, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PD/1) was recorded.
5. After apprehending the prosecutrix and the accused, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and both of them were sent to hospital for medico legal examination. Thereafter the prosecutrix was produced before PW8 Mr. Sanjeev Arya, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, who recorded her statement in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. After completion of the formalities of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for prosecution of appellant No. 1, Suraj. Since the offences were triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the said Court. Learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 5.1.2001, charge sheeted appellant No. 1, Suraj, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC, to which appellant No. 1, Suraj, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-1 and thereafter an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C., was presented for summoning of appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, to face trial along with the principal accused. Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 6 The said application was allowed and appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, was ordered to be summoned to face trial along with appellant No. 1. After appearance of appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, both the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g), IPC, vide order dated 15.5.2001, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Dr. K.K. Sharma, Medical Officer, Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, Kurukshetra. He deposed that on 20.9.2000, on police request (Ex. PA), he medico legally examined Suraj, aged about 20 years. In his opinion, there was nothing to suggest that Suraj was unable to perform sexual intercourse.
PW-2 Dr. (Mrs) Madhu Sharma, Medical Officer, Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, Kurukshetra. She deposed that on 20.9.2000, she medico legally examined the prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, a student and resident of Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra. No fresh injury was found over any part of her body. The Salwar and underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession. From the two swabs, which were taken from the smears of posterior fornix, two Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 7 slides were prepared. The swabs were sealed in two vials and two slides were sealed in a cloth and all the articles were handed over to the police. After seeing the report (Ex. PK) received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal, she further deposed that the possibility of the prosecutrix being subjected to sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. In the cross-examination, she disclosed that the prosecutrix had sexual intercourse 2 to 7 days prior to the medico legal examination.
PW-3 SI Mam Chand. On 18.9.2000, while being posted at Police Station, City, Thanesar, he recorded the First Information Report (Ex. PD/1) on receipt of the statement (Ex. PD). He also sent the special report to the officers on the same day through Constable Ved Parkash.
PW-4 SI Pala Ram. On 5.10.2000, he got prepared scaled site plan of the place of incident from Constable Mukesh Kumar, Draftsman. On the same day, PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh had produced before him the photocopy of the school certificate of his daughter.
PW-5 Prosecutrix. She deposed in consonance with her earlier statement as disclosed to learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra. The said Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 8 version has been mentioned in the initial part of this judgment.
PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh. He deposed that his daughter (prosecutrix) aged about 14 years was a student of 9th class. On 16.9.2000, at about 7.30 a.m., she left the house for going to her school, but she did not return till afternoon and, therefore, search was made. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, was also found missing, thus, a suspicion arose and the matter was reported to the police on 18.9.2000. He also deposed that on 20.9.2000, at about 12.30 p.m., when he along with the police was present at the Railway Station, Kurukshetra, there he spotted appellant No. 1, Suraj, and the prosecutrix. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, was arrested and the prosecutrix as well as appellant No. 1 were taken to the hospital for medico legal examination. He also deposed that after 15 days of the incident, in his and in the presence of his daughter, the draftsman prepared the scaled site plan.
He also deposed that a copy of the Middle Examination Certificate (Ex. PE) of the prosecutrix was handed over to the police by him. He also deposed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 12.11.1986.
Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 9 PW-7 SI Surinder Pal. He was the investigating officer and he deposed regarding the investigation conducted in the matter.
PW-8 Sanjeev Arya, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra. He deposed that on 21.9.2000, the prosecutrix was produced before him by SI Surinder Pal (PW-7). On police request (Ex. PM), the statement of the prosecutrix, in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C., was recorded by him being the Duty Magistrate.
PW-9 HC Mukesh Kumar. He deposed that on 5.10.2000, with the help of the prosecutrix and PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, he inspected the place of incident and prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. PN).
7. After tendering of the report (Ex. PK), received from the Chemical Examiner, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, the prosecution evidence was closed.
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating material emerging on record was put to both the appellants in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. The appellants pleaded innocence. However, appellant No. 1, Suraj, in reply to the last question explained that he was innocent and the witnesses had deposed falsely. He never abducted and ravished the prosecutrix. On 16.9.2000, she told him that her parents Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 10 were away and she wanted to go out for enjoyment and he should help her. Similar statement was suffered by appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, in response to the last question, while making his statement.
9. In defence evidence, the appellants examined DW-1 Dr. O.P. Gogia, District Senior Medical Officer, office of Civil Surgeon, Kurukshetra. He deposed that on 27.11.2000, in the company of Dr. C.R. Khatri and other medical officers, the prosecutrix was radiologically examined and on the basis of ossification test, they found that radiological age of the prosecutrix was between 16½ to 17 years on 27.11.2000.
10. No other evidence in defence was led. After completion of the evidence of both sides and hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them to undergo various terms of sentences, as has been described in the initial part of the judgment.
11. Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for appellant No. 1, Suraj, submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the date of alleged incident. To elaborate his submission, he explained that the deposition of DW-1, Dr. O.P. Gogia, has made it clear that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age on the date of incident. He submits that according to DW-1, Dr. O.P. Gogia, the radiological age of the prosecutrix was between 16½ to 17 years Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 11 on 27.11.2000 and if two years are added to 17 years, then the prosecutrix became 19 years old on the date of incident. He also submits that if two views are possible, then the one favourable to the accused has to be accepted. He further argues that the prosecutrix had been writing letters to appellant No. 1, Suraj, and on the date of incident the parents of the prosecutrix were out of Kurukshetra and the prosecutrix insisted upon appellant No. 1 to take her away for enjoyment. According to the learned counsel, appellant No. 1, Suraj, has been falsely implicated in this case since the prosecutrix took a u-turn under the pressure of her parents. He further submits that from 16.9.2000 to 20.9.2000, the prosecutrix remained in the company of appellant No. 1, Suraj, at different places and travelled by different modes, but the matter was not reported to anybody. Learned counsel further argued that if this Court did not agree with the submissions made, then it would not be a case attracting the mischief of Section 376(2)(g), IPC, since appellant No. 1, Suraj, had no common intention with appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, while committing rape on the prosecutrix. Therefore, at best it would be a case attracting the mischief of Section 376, IPC, only.
12. Mr. H.S. Sullar, learned counsel for appellant No. 2, submits that there is not an iota of evidence on the file to connect appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, with the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC. While elaborating his Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 12 submissions, he further submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record that Narinder Kumar had a common intention or pre-concert with his brother, Suraj, for committing rape on the prosecutrix. He also submits that on 20.9.2000, at the time of making her statement to the police, in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix had not stated anything with regard to the participation of appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar. He further submits that the statement of the prosecutrix in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. was deliberately got recorded on 21.9.2000 in spite of the fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, was available on 20.9.2000 also. Therefore, the prosecutrix was pressurised to improve her statement while making statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statement. He further submits that the name of Narinder Kumar did appear in the statement of the prosecutrix made under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Even if all the allegations, as levelled by her in the said statement or during course of her deposition before the learned Trial Court, are taken at their face value, then also no case is made out that appellant No. 2 had a common intention or pre-concert with appellant No. 1, Suraj. He submits that it has not been brought on record that appellant No. 2, Narinder Singh, played any active role when the prosecutrix was allegedly raped by Suraj. He also Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 13 submits that concededly appellant No. 1, Suraj, was all alone when the prosecutrix met her underneath the railway fly-over on the date of incident and he alone took her to his old house and there he committed rape. He further submits that according to the prosecution version appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, had already left the room when the rape was committed on the prosecutrix by appellant No. 1, Suraj. He also submits that PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, father of the prosecutrix, while lodging the report had not named appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar. He also submits that with regard to participation of appellant No. 2, divergent statements were suffered by the prosecutrix at different stages. He has also referred to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix wherein the improvements were duly confronted with her previous statements. He also submits that even the statement/deposition of the prosecutrix was highly contradictory with the statements suffered by other prosecution witnesses, insofar as the participation of appellant No. 2 is concerned. On the basis of these submissions, he prayed for acceptance of the appeal qua appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently refuted the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that from the overwhelming evidence appearing on the record, it is abundantly proved that the prosecutrix was approximately 14 years of age on the date of Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 14 incident. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the State placed reliance on the statement of the prosecutrix, statement of her father, PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, statement of PW-2 Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Sharma, statement of DW-1 Dr. O.P. Gogia and the Middle examination certificate (Ex. PE). He further submits that, in fact, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 12.11.1986 and, as such, she was less than 14 years of age on the date of incident, i.e. 16.9.2000. He further submits that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for returning the verdict of guilt of the appellants. There was no occasion for the prosecutrix to have deposed falsely against the appellants without any rhyme or reasons. He also submits that the learned Court below has discussed every aspect of the case and thereafter held the appellants guilty. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the entire evidence available on record.
15. Explanation 1, appended to Section 376, IPC, reads as under:-
"Explanation 1.- Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section." (emphasis added) Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 15
16. Perusal of the above Explanation clearly spells out that 'common intention' of more than one person is essential for attracting the mischief of 'gang rape'. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record that appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, had 'pre-concert' or 'common intention' with appellant No. 1, Suraj, at the time of commission of rape. The alleged incident of rape had taken place on 16.9.2000. The prosecutrix and appellant No. 1, Suraj, were apprehended by the police on 20.9.2000, at 12.30 p.m. at the Railway Station, Kurukshetra, and immediately thereafter the statement of the prosecutrix, in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded by the police wherein there is no reference with regard to the role assigned to appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar. In spite of the availability of the Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate at Kurukshetra, the prosecutrix was not produced before him on the day she was apprehended for getting her statement recorded in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C., but for that purpose she was produced on the next day, i.e. 21.9.2000, and, thus, the complainant side/police got sufficient time to pressurize the prosecutrix to improve her statement for widening the array of the accused. The prosecutrix when appeared as PW-5 before the learned Trial Court, she improved her statement to a larger extent and was duly confronted by the defence with her previous statement. Even if such exaggeration and improvements in the statements of the prosecutrix are Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 16 ignored and the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then also, it has nowhere come on record that appellant No. 1, Suraj, had met his brother, appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, before commission of the rape on the prosecutrix. It is conceded case of the prosecution that on 16.9.2000, the prosecutrix missed her van for going to the school and when she was going to the school on her feet and was present underneath the railway fly-over, appellant No. 1, Suraj, reached there while riding a scooter and induced her to accompany him to his old house where he committed rape on the prosecutrix. In such a scenario, it is abundantly clear that appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, had no 'pre-concert' or 'common intention' with his co-appellant, Suraj, and, therefore, his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC, is not sustainable and is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
17. So far as the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant No. 1 are concerned, it has been proved by the prosecution that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 12.11.1986 and on the date of alleged occurrence, i.e. 16.9.2000, she was less than 14 years of age. While taking into consideration the report of the radiologist, this Court is conscious of the fact that where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused has to be accepted, but it is not rule of the thumb. If there are other supporting evidence which clearly spells out Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 17 that the age of the prosecutrix was less than what has been described in the report of the radiologist, in such situation the benefit of two years on either side has to be given to the prosecution. In the present case, at the time of recording of the statement of PW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, father of the prosecutrix, he had clearly stated that his daughter (prosecutrix) was approximately 14 years of age; when the statement of the prosecutrix in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded by the police on 20.9.2000, she stated her age to be 14 years; when the statement of the prosecutrix in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C., was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, then also she narrated her age to be 14 years; the school certificate of 8th standard also contains the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 12.11.1986; and DW-1 Dr. O.P. Gogia, who radiologically examined the prosecutrix though opined that the age of the prosecutrix could be 16½ to 17 years on 27.11.2000, but the benefit of two years on either side, has to be given. If that benefit is given to the prosecution in consonance with the other material, then it clearly proves that the prosecutrix was approximately of the age of 14 years on the date of incident. Therefore, it is held that the prosecutrix was of approximately 14 years of age on the date of incident. As such, there is no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for appellant No. 1 in this regard.
Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 18
18. It is by now settled that the verdict of guilt can be returned on the sole statement of the prosecutrix, provided it inspires confidence. There was no enmity nor had it been alleged that there was any motive on the part of the prosecutrix or her family members to falsely implicate appellant No. 1, Suraj. Therefore, the involvement of appellant No. 1, Suraj, for commission of rape and abduction etc. is well proved from the deposition of PW-5 prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix is further fortified from the medical evidence.
19. The argument of the learned counsel that the prosecutrix had visited several places in the company of appellant No. 1 and she did not bring his misdeed to the notice of any person, would not be material in this case, since she was less than 16 years of age and, thus, the consent is immaterial. Even otherwise, it has come in evidence that appellant No. 1 was constantly threatening the prosecutrix not to disclose anything to any person.
20. In view of the above, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant No. 1, so far as his involvement is concerned. However, there is force in his alternative submission that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it was a case of gang rape, therefore, the conviction of appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC, is not sustainable. Appellant No. 2, Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-1301-SB-2001 (O&M) 19 Narinder Kumar, has already been acquitted of the said charge. Therefore, it simplicitor is a case of rape attracting the mischief of Section 376, IPC. It is settled law that if the charge is of graver offence and the appellant is ultimately found to be guilty of a lesser offence, then he can be convicted for the lesser offence. Keeping in view the said principle, it is held that appellant No. 1, Suraj, has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376, IPC. The substantive sentence of appellant No. 1, Suraj, awarded for the offence of rape is reduced to 7 years, in view of the fact that the incident had taken place about 13 years back and he was of 21 years of age at that time. The sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC, shall remain unaltered. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
21. Now the prosecutrix and appellant No. 1 are married and maintaining their respective families.
22. With the above modification in the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, the present appeal is allowed qua appellant No. 2, Narinder Singh, and partly allowed qua appellant No. 1, Suraj.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE August 14, 2013 Pkapoor Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order