Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh Alias Jaila vs State Of Punjab on 20 December, 2010
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001
Date of decision: December 20, 2010
Jarnail Singh alias Jaila
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Punjab
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
PRESENT: Mr R.K.Dadwal, Advocate
Mr P. S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral):
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution was that on 22.8.2000 at 10.30 PM, the appellant had entered the house of the prosecutrix, who was a widow and aged Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001 -2- about 70 years and after tearing her clothes, committed rape upon her. He also threatened her that in case she disclosed about the occurrence to anyone, she would be done to death. She had apprised the village Panchayat about the incident, besides showing her torn clothes. As every one was afraid of the appellant, no one came forward to help her out. On 23.8.2008, she submitted application Ex.PF, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PF/2 was registered on the same day at 7.30 PM under Sections 376/506 IPC against the appellant at Police Station, Garhshankar.
During investigation of the case, SI Surinder Singh recorded statements of the witnesses and inspected the spot, besides preparing rough site plan. The salwar of the prosecutrix was taken into possession and she was got medico-legally examined. The appellant was arrested on 24.8.2000 and got medico-legally examined. After completion of investigation and presentation of the challan against the appellant, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges under Sections 376/506 IPC were framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW-1 Dr M.L. Bansal, who had medico-legally examined the appellant on 25.8.2000 at 12.10 PM, found that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing the act of sexual intercourse. PW-2 Tarlok Singh deposed that the prosecutrix had met him in Nurpur Adda in Garhshankar town when she was accompanied by Parshotam Singh, Sarpanch of the village. At that time, the prosecutrix was weeping and on enquiry, she told him that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her twice. He was also told by her that her Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001 -3- salwar was torn by the appellant. He then accompanied the prosecutrix to the Police Station where she submitted her written complaint. PW-3 Jasbir Singh, Draftsman, proved the scaled site plan Ex.PB, whereas PW-4 Rajinder Singh, Election Kanungo, proved the voters' list of village Mehtabpur for the year 1995 which contained the name of the prosecutrix at Sr. No.1003 and her age mentioned as 65 years. PW-5 Dr Reeta Dhami deposed that she had conducted medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix on 24.8.2000 at 1.05 PM and found 1.5 cm abrasion on the right labia majora. There was redness on the right labia majora and hymen was absent. Two fingers passed through the vagina easily. There was no injury in the anal region. She sent the vaginal swabs, anal swabs and vaginal fluid slide for chemical examination and on receipt of report Ex.PE of the Chemical Examiner, gave an opinion that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix appeared as PW-6 and corroborated the prosecution version on all material details. PW-7 Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch of the village of the prosecutrix testified that on 23.8.2000 at about 4.00 AM, the prosecutrix came to his house and told that the appellant had committed rape upon her. He told the prosecutrix that he would locate the appellant but when he failed to trace him out, he accompanied the prosecutrix to the Police Station, Garhshankar. The torn salwar produced by the prosecutrix was taken into possession by the police. The investigation part of the case was deposed to by PW-8 MHC Iqbal Singh, PW-9 C.Gurnek Singh and PW-10 SI Surinder Singh.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded that he was innocent. He had not raped the prosecutrix. In fact, the prosecutrix was brought by Chuhar Singh, a known smuggler from another State and her antecedents were doubtful. She was living Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001 -4- all alone in a room in the village and was the keep and servant of Chuhar Singh. She was helping Chuhar Singh in supplying narcotics, who was involved in many cases of NDPS Act. The appellant further stated that he had been driving the vehicle belonging to Sucha Singh. Chuhar Singh came to him in the presence of his father and insisted upon him to carry contraband but when he refused, he took ill of it and there was exchange of hot words. Thereafter, Chuhar Singh and his supporters Mohinder Singh, Tarlok Singh, Parshotam Singh and the prosecutrix joined hands to falsely implicate him in the case. In defence, the appellant examined his father Meet Ram as DW-1 and Bikkar Singh as DW-2.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.
According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 22.8.2000 at about 10.30 PM at the house of the prosecutrix in village Mehtabpur. It has appeared in the testimony of PW-7 Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch of the village that the prosecutrix came to his house on the same night i.e. on 23.8.2000 at about 4.00 AM and told him that she had been subjected to rape by the appellant. Said Mohinder Singh told the prosecutrix that he would make an attempt to locate the appellant. His attempt remained unsuccessful. He then accompanied the prosecutrix to Police Station, Garhshankar. In his presence, the police took into possession the torn salwar Ex.P1, which was produced by the prosecutrix. Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001 -5-
According to the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-6, the appellant had entered her house on 22.8.2000 at about 10.30 PM when she was sleeping there. He sat on her cot and started talking loose. Thereafter, he committed sexual intercourse with her. When she asked him not to indulge in sexual intercourse as she was a widow, he tore her salwar. He also pressed her neck while threatening that in case she told about this fact to anybody, he would kill her. She then narrated the occurrence to Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch of her village. Thereafter, she accompanied Mohinder Singh and Tarlok Singh to the Police Station, Garhshankar. She identified salwar Ex.P-1, which, according to her, was worn by her at the time of commission of sexual intercourse by the appellant and was torn by him. PW-2 Tarlok Singh had deposed that he knew the prosecutrix whom he met at Nurpur Adda in Garshankar town. She was weeping and on enquiry, she stated that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. At that time, she was accompanied by Parshotam Singh, Sarpanch of the village.
As is clear from the testimony of PW-4 Rajinder Singh, Election Kanungo, the name of the prosecutrix figured in the voters' list of village Mehtabpur and her age mentioned therein as 65 years. The voters' list pertained to the year 1995 and, thus, in the year 2000, she was aged about 70 years and the said age was mentioned by her when she was medico-legally examined by PW-5 Dr Reeta Dhami and when she appeared as PW-6 before the trial Court.
Dr Reeta Dhami had sent vaginal swabs, anal swabs and vaginal fluid slide for chemical examination. As per the report Ex.PE of the Chemical Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001 -6- Examiner, semen was found on both the swabs and slide. After going through the report of the Chemical Examiner, Dr Reeta Dhami had given her opinion that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse.
As per the medical evidence, the prosecutrix had suffered an abrasion on her right labia majora. Even redness was noticed on the right labia majora. That is indicative of the fact that force was used by the appellant while committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
The delay in lodging of the FIR had been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. After the occurrence had taken place on 22.8.2000 at about 10.30 PM, the prosecutrix went to the house of the village Sarpanch during the same night at 4.00 AM. She apprised him about the incident, whereafter the village Sarpanch stated that he would make an attempt to locate the appellant. As the appellant could not be apprehended, the prosecutrix left for Police Station, Garhshankar where she submitted her application Ex.PF, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PF/2 was registered on 23.8.2000 at 7.30 PM. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellant on account of the delay which occurred in lodging of the FIR.
The plea of the appellant that he had been falsely implicated, at the instance of Chuhar Singh, who had brought the prosecutrix from Uttar Pardesh, has no legs to stand as his father DW-1 Meet Ram did not make any complaint against his false implication, either to the Panchayat or to the Senior Superintendent of Police or any other higher police authority. Even DW-2 Bikkar Singh, Member of the Gram Panchayat admitted in his cross-examination that no Criminal Appeal S-729-SB of 2001 -7- resolution was passed by the Panchayat in respect of false implication of the appellant.
In view of the above, no case is made out for interfering in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The same is based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record.
The appeal being without any merit is, therefore, dismissed.
December 20, 2010 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds JUDGE