Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh Alias Bittu vs State Of Punjab on 26 April, 2010
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.140-SB of 2000
Date of decision: April 26, 2010
Charanjit Singh alias Bittu
.. Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.2000
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, convicting and
sentencing the accused-appellant Charanjit Singh @ Bittu (herein referred
as 'the accused') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to
pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for
five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 366 IPC.
Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on
23.3.1995, the prosecutrix (name not disclosed), got her statement recorded
before ASI Lakhbir Singh alleging therein that she is a resident of village
Khaira and was matriculate. Her father was an agriculturist. The accused
used to visit their house off and on and used to tell her parents that she
( prosecutrix ) was his daughter and he would marry her in some well to do
family. About 10 days back, at about 5.00 p.m. the accused told the
prosecutrix that he was to settle her engagement and for that purpose she
would have to accompany him to be shown to the prospective bride groom
at Bhikiwind. The accused took her in his Maruti car to village Bhikhiwnd,
but later on he disclosed that the prospective bride groom had not arrived
and took her to his house at village Bhikiwind. In the said house, he
showed her movie on the TV/VCR. At about 11.00 p.m. the accused took
her to his bed room and committed rape upon her. Upon raising hue and cry,
Criminal Appeal No.140-SB of 2000 -2-
***
the accused threatened to kill her, however, she was dropped at about 2.00 a.m. at her house from where she left for Gurdawara Damdama Sahib and on return she complained to the police. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and investigated. The accused was arrested; statement of the witnesses were recorded; and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Finding a prima facie case, the accused was charged under Section 376/366 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Prosecutrix (PW1), Baldev Singh (PW2), ASI Darshan Lal (PW3), Rishi Ram Draftsman (PW4), Dr. Karnail Kaur (PW5), Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW6), Balbir Singh (PW7), Manjit Kaur (PW8) and SI Lakhbir Singh Investigating Officer (PW9).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that the father of the prosecutrix had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him and did not return the same for which he had obtained civil court's decree against him and for that reason, in connivance with the police he got him falsely implicated in this case. In defence, he examined NHC Surjit Singh (DW1), Kuljot Singh (DW2).
The trial ended in conviction.
At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter.
Even otherwise, having examined the impugned judgment, the occurrence in this case is stated to have taken place about 10 days prior to 23.3.1995 and the case was registered after 10 days. The prosecutrix was major and medical evidence reveals that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. However, keeping in view the mitigating circumstances that the occurrence took place on 13.3.1995 and the accused has already undergone about 9 months and 14 days out of the substantive sentence; the prosecutrix was major and did not report the matter for 10 days to her parents; and that she also left for Gurudwara Dumdama Sahib, the accused Criminal Appeal No.140-SB of 2000 -3- *** deserves leniency in the case.
Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine.
April 26, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge