Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir @ Bheera vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002
Date of Decision:05.09.2013
Raghbir @ Bheera .....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Sagar Deswal, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana, for the respondent-State.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Assailing the prosecution version and its evidence in entirety, appellant-convict Raghbir @ Bheera son of Puran(for brevity "the appellant) has preferred the instant appeal, to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.03.2002 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2002, by virtue of which, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment(for short "RI") for a period of five years, to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years, to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month, under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 2
2. The conspectus of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record is that, on 04.09.1999 at about 1.30 PM, the prosecutrix(PW7)(name intentionally withheld) a female child of about 10 years, daughter of, and her brother-Sukhwinder Singh, aged about 8 years, son of, complainant-Surjit Kaur(PW1) wife of Gurcharan Singh (for brevity "the complainant) had gone to the fields. As soon as, they reached near the fields, in the meantime, the appellant emerged from other fields(place of occurrence) and forcibly kidnapped and took away the prosecutrix in the paddy fields of Baldev Raj. Her brother Sukhwinder Singh(PW8) became scared and came running to his house. He apprised and narrated the entire story to his mother complainant-Surjit Kaur. Thereafter, she rushed to the fields, followed by other villagers and noticed the appellant and prosecutrix in naked condition. The appellant was attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. It was averred that other villagers also reached at the spot and on seeing them, the appellant decamped from the place of occurrence. However, he was apprehended by the people from the nearby field. The complainant reported the matter and put the police machinery into motion in this regard.
3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that on 04.09.1999, the appellant has kidnapped and attempted to commit sexual intercourse on a minor girl of 10 years(prosecutrix). In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint(Ex.P1) of complainant-Surjit Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 3 Kaur, the present criminal case was registered against the appellant, vide FIR No.234 dated 04.09.1999(Ex.P-3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 read with Section 511 IPC, by the police of Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat.
4. After completion of the investigation, final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellant, to face trial for the offences in question.
5. Having completed all the codal formalities, he was charge- sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 read with Section 511 IPC by the trial Court. As, he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was listed for evidence of the prosecution.
6. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined the prosecutrix as PW7, who has deposed in the following terms:-
"On 4.9.1999, I had gone to our fields along with my brother Sukhvinder Singh to supply meals to my father at about 1.00/1.30 P.M. My father was not present there in the fields. When we were on our way, accused Raghbir emerged from the fields of Baldev Raj. He just caught hold of me and my brother ran away towards the village from that place. Accused Raghbir took me to the fields of Baldev Raj. He put off his pant and also put off my salwar. He made me sit on his thighs. He had tried to commit rape on me. I started crying loudly. In the meanwhile my mother had reached at the spot. Jagtar Singh had also reached at the spot. Other persons from the village also reached there. On seeing my mother and Jagtar Singh coming towards the spot, the accused had left me and ran away. Had my mother and other villagers not arrived at the spot, the accused would have committed rape on me. My statement was recorded at the spot. The accused present in the court is the one who had tried to commit rape on me."
7. Sequelly, PW1-complainant-Surjit Kaur and her son PW8- Sukhwinder Singh, have also supported the prosecution version. Instead Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 4 of reproducing their entire statements and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that they have duly corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix and version contained in the initial complaint(Ex.P1) on all vital aspects of the matter. PW2 Jagtar Singh son of Sunder Singh has, inter alia, maintained that on 04.09.1999, having noticed PW8- Sukhvinder Singh and his mother PW1-Surjit Kaur, running towards the fields, he also followed them. He along with other villagers reached the fields of Baldev Raj(spot) and came to know that the prosecutrix was forcibly caught by Raghbir @ Bheera. On seeing them, the accused had run away in a half-naked position. The prosecutrix was also not wearing her salwar at that time and the appellant tried to commit rape on her. The accused was caught hold by them from the nearby fields.
8. Likewise, PW9-Shardha Ram, Head Teacher of Govt.Primary School has stated on oath that the prosecutrix, daughter of Gurcharan Singh was studying in 5th class. She was admitted in the school on 18.04.1995. According to school record, her date of birth is 01.04.1989, vide Birth Certificate(Ex.P7), which was taken into possession by the police by way of recovery memo(Ex.P4). PW11-Satbir Singh, Patwari has prepared the scaled site plan(Ex.P10) of the place of occurrence with its correct marginal notes at the instance of complainant- Surjit Kaur. PW6-Dr.S.S.Kalra medico legally examined the appellant. On police request(Ex.P6), he gave the opinion(Ex.P5) to the effect that the appellant was capable of doing intercourse.
9. Similarly, PW3 ASI-Sant Kumar has deposed that on 04.09.1999 on receipt of ruqa(Ex.P1), he made his endorsement(Ex.P2) Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 5 on it and recorded the formal FIR(Ex.P3). After completion of the investigation, PW4-SI Ram Kishan has prepared the final police report (challan) in this case. PW5-Constable Narinder Kumar took into possession Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix from the Head-Master, Govt.Primary School, vide recovery memo(Ex.P4).
10. Now adverting to the evidence of PW10-ASI Ashok Kumar, investigating officer, he maintained that on 04.09.1999 he was present in the village Rairkalan in connection with Lok Sabha Elections. Complainant-Surjit Kaur met him and presented complaint(Ex.P1). He attested and made his endorsement(Ex.P8) and sent it to the Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.P3) was recorded by ASI Sant Kumar. Thereafter, he went to the spot with the complainant. He inspected and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.P9) of the place of occurrence with its correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of the PWs prosecutrix, Jagtar Singh and Sukhwinder Singh etc. and verified the facts from the villagers. He has also arrested the accused and made application(Ex.P6) to the doctor for his medical examination. He took into possession scaled site plan and Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix. This is the total evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
11. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as envisaged under section 313 Cr.PC. Although, he has stoutly denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 6 implication, but he did not prefer to produce any evidence in defence, despite adequate opportunities.
12. Taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
13. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. That is how, I am seized of the matter.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended with some amount of vehemence that the story of the prosecution is highly improbable. The evidence of the prosecution is contradictory and since the evidence brought on record by it falls short, as is required to prove a criminal charge, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake in convicting the appellant. Thus, he prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
15. Hailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, on the contrary, learned State Counsel has vehemently urged that the story of the prosecution is probable and natural. The matter was promptly reported to the police. The contention is that the prosecutrix has duly supported the prosecution version, which further find corroboration from the statements of her mother(PW1), brother(PW8) and independent witness(PW2). According to the learned State Counsel, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the commission of pointed offences and no interference is warranted in this regard.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, having gone through the record with their valuable Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 7 assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit and the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
17. Although, the indicated evidence brought on record by the prosecution would reveal, that the appellant was also guilty of offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, but the trial Court has charged and convicted him only under Sections 363, 376/511 IPC, for kidnapping and attempting to commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Section 361 IPC defines kidnapping and escalates that "Whoever takes or entices any minor female under 18 years of age out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap her." Section 366 IPC further envisages that "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, is liable to be punished therein."
18. A conjoint and meaningful reading of Sections 361, 363 and 366 IPC would reveal that in order to invoke these provisions, the prosecution was required to prove by producing cogent evidence on record that the appellant has actually taken or enticed away or induced the prosecutrix with intent that she may be compelled, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Actual taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian are the essential ingredients of the offence of kidnaping. The word "takes" no doubt means physical taking(as in the Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 8 present case) and not necessarily by means of use of force or fraud at every time. The ultimate object of these provisions seems as such to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards. The words "takes or entices" keeping out the minor from the lawful guardian of her parents in Section 361, carry a very important and significant meaning.
19. Above being the legal position and evidence on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges of kidnapping, inducement and attempt to commit rape against the appellant or not ?
20. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in affirmative, as the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the appellant in this regard.
21. As is evident from the record, according to the prosecution that on 04.09.1999 at about 1.30 PM, the prosecutrix(PW7)(name intentionally withheld) a female child of about 10 years, daughter of, and her brother-Sukhwinder Singh, aged about 8 years, son of, complainant- Surjit Kaur(PW1) wife of Gurcharan Singh, had gone to the fields. As soon as, they reached near the fields, in the meantime, the appellant emerged from other fields(place of occurrence) and forcibly kidnapped and took away the prosecutrix in the paddy fields of Baldev Raj. Her brother Sukhwinder Singh(PW8) became scared and came running to his Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 9 house. He apprised, and narrated the entire story to, his mother complainant-Surjit Kaur. Thereafter, she rushed to the fields, followed by other villagers and noticed the appellant and prosecutrix in naked condition. The appellant had attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. It was averred that other villagers also reached at the spot and on seeing them, the appellant decamped from the place of occurrence. However, he was apprehended by the people from the nearby field.
22. At the very outset, adverting to the age of the prosecutrix, in this respect, PW1-complainant Surjit Kaur has maintained on oath that her daughter(prosecutrix) was 10 years of age at the time of occurrence. Not only that, PW9-Shardha Ram, Head Teacher has categorically stated that the prosecutrix was admitted in Govt.Primary School, Rairkalan on 18.04.1995. She was studying in 5th class at the relevant time. He has produced her Birth Certificate(Ex.P7), which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo(Ex.P4), indicating the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 01.04.1989. In this manner, undisputedly, it stands proved on record that she(prosecutrix) was a minor child of about 10 years at the time of the commission of offence.
23. The first cosmetic argument of the learned counsel that there is a delay of four hours in reporting the matter to the police, which doubts the prosecution version, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. The occurrence in this case has taken place at about 1.30 PM on 04.09.1999. After receipt of the information, the complainant immediately rushed to the fields and noticed that the appellant, having kidnapped the prosecutrix, was attempting to commit rape on her. On Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 10 seeing, he ran away from the spot, but was apprehended by the people in the nearby field. The place of occurrence is at a distance of 10-11 acres (killas) from her residence. She along with the prosecutrix returned back to her house. Although, her husband was not present in the village, even then, she promptly reported the matter to the police. Her statement (Ex.P1) was recorded at 5.15 PM on the same day by PW10-ASI Ashok Kumar. He made his endorsement and sent it to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR(Ex.P3) was recorded at 6.15 PM. Altogether, it reached the residence of the Magistrate at 8.45 PM on the same day. In this manner, there is no delay on the part of the complainant in reporting the matter to the police under the present set of circumstances. On the contrary, the matter was very promptly reported to the police by the complainant.
24. Not only that, possibly no one can dispute and lose sight of the fact that in cases of kidnapping and sexual offences, minor delay in lodging the FIR can be due to variety of reasons, particularly the reluctance of the family members of the prosecutrix to go to the police and complaint about the incident, which concerns the reputation & honour of the family members in general and of minor prosecutrix in particular. It is only after coming to a cool thought that the complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Such minor, insignificant and duly explained delay has got no direct bearing on the prosecution version(as contrary urged on behalf of the appellant), which is otherwise proved by cogent and documentary evidence brought on record.
25. Ex facie, the next contention of the learned counsel that the Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 11 story of the prosecution is highly improbable and its evidence is contradictory. In this respect, he has pointed out that once the appellant has kidnapped the prosecutrix and attempted to commit rape, then her brother PW8-Sukhwinder Singh, would not have left her alone in the hands of the appellant in the fields. This contention also lacks merit. It has come in the evidence that PW8 was a child of about 8 years, whereas the prosecutrix was less than 10 years at the time of occurrence. They had gone to the fields together. But since the appellant had suddenly emerged and forcibly kidnapped and took the prosecutrix to the paddy fields of Baldev Raj, in that eventuality, the natural conduct of PW8 would truly warrant, him to immediate rush to his house, so that he could immediately inform the entire episode to his mother. This is what he has done. Hence, his conduct was very much natural and truthful.
26. Sequelly, the minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel in evidence, such as (i) as per cross-examination of PW1, the prosecutrix might have left her house at about 12.00 noon or 1.30 PM, whereas according to PW7, she had gone to the fields at about 1.00/1.30 PM and (ii) according to PW1, the appellant has fled away from the spot, whereas according to PW2, he was caught hold by the people, are wholly irrelevant. No doubt, PW1 in her cross-examination has stated that the prosecutrix had left the house at about 12.00 noon or 1.00 PM. But she has further duly explained that after some time at about 1.30 PM, her son Sukhwinder Singh came to the house and narrated the entire story. PW7 has also maintained that she had gone to the fields at about 1.00/1.30 PM. The place of incident is at a distance of 10-11 acres(killas) from her Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 12 house. The prosecutrix might have taken/consumed some time to reach the fields from her house and the question of any such discrepancy did not arise at all. Similarly, PW1 has deposed that on seeing the people, the accused had run away from the spot. It is also initially so stated by PW2 that on seeing the people from a distance of about one acre(field), the appellant-accused slipped away from the place of occurrence. In the next breath, he has further categorically maintained that, however, the appellant was apprehended by the people from other field(killa). In the same sequence, the fact that the prosecutrix was wearing orange colour suit(as claimed by her), or she was wearing a printed suit(as stated by PW1), is of no consequences, as even a printed suit may also be of orange colour. In this view of the matter, such minor discrepancies pale into insignificance, as regards, the commission of actual crime is concerned.
27. Moreover, such discrepancies are bound to occur even in the statement of truthful witnesses after a lapse of such time. The individual observations of different persons of the same fact, varies from person to person. Every person used to observe and react differently in the manner of narration of the facts. Such discrepancies are very minor in nature and have got no direct bearing on the actual incident of kidnapping and attempt to commit rape. It is well-known principle of law that such so- called (minor) discrepancies, which have no adverse effect on the actual occurrence, have to be outrightly ignored. It is not that every discrepancy or contradiction would matter much in assessing the reliability and credibility of the witnesses or truthfulness of the prosecution version, unless the discrepancies and contradictions are so material & substantial Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 13 and that too are in respect of vitally relevant aspects of the facts deposed. At the same time, the evidence of truthful witnesses cannot straightway be condemned or discarded in its entirety in such case of sexual assault.
28. Faced with the situation, the next submission of the learned counsel that no offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC is made out, is neither tenable nor the observations of the Delhi High Court in case Niranjan Singh Versus State(Delhi), 1986(2) RCR(Criminal) 505 and of Rajasthan High Court in case Sulekhan Singh Versus State (Rajasthan), 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 676, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances, it was observed that the ingredients of Section 376 IPC were lacking. However, In Sulekhan Singh's case(supra), conviction for attempt to commit rape was upheld.
29. Likewise, the mere fact that the prosecutrix was not medico legally examined, ipso facto is not sufficient to discard the ocular version of the prosecution, as(contrary) urged on behalf of the appellant. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant has actually committed rape on the prosecutrix, which would have required medical corroboration, but its case is that he removed his trouser(pant) and also removed salwar of the prosecutrix and was in the process of committing rape, when he was caught red-handed. The prosecution has produced more than sufficient and acceptable ocular evidence on record. In that eventuality, there was no legal requirement of medical corroboration in this relevant connection.
30. Hence, the prosecution version is very probable and natural. The prosecution witnesses have duly supported its case on all vital Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 14 aspects of the matter. The evidence of PWs inspire confidence and is reliable. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix coupled with the evidence of other witnesses. It is now well-settled principle of law that the evidence of such a victim stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable and truthful. It cannot possibly be denied that a minor girl subjected to such kidnapping and sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime, but is a victim of another person's lust. It is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
31. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain,(1990) (1) SCC 550, which was subsequently followed in various judgments. Considering the evidentiary value of prosecutrix in sex abuse cases, it was ruled as under:-
"A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attracted to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (B) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reasons the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 15 prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence."
32. Thus, it would be seen that, there is ample cogent evidence on record to substantiate the indicated guilt of the appellant. The ocular evidence of PW1, PW2, PW7 and PW8 is natural and reliable. The investigation was duly testified by the Investigating Officer. They have fully proved the complicity of the appellant. They were cross-examined at length, but no substantial material could be elicited in their searching cross examination to dislodge their testimony and impeach their credibility. No motive could possibly be attributed to the complainant or prosecutrix as to why they would falsely implicate the appellant in this case. They gave a vivid, consistent and cogent version of the occurrence and supported the prosecution story on all vital counts. The mere denial by the appellant that he was falsely implicated, outrightly deserves to be rejected in the absence of any cogent material on record in this relevant behalf. It is highly difficult to believe that a mother would falsely implicate the appellant by levelling such allegations of kidnapping and attempt to commit rape against her minor daughter, unless the shoe really pinches. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any other legal infirmity or major contradictions and inherent improbabilities, much less cogent, to dislodge the prosecution version, which is otherwise fully proved by ocular and documentary evidence as discussed here-in-above.
33. Therefore, the prosecution version is very probable and natural. The prosecutrix was a minor child of 10 years at the relevant time of occurrence. If the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing Rani Seema S 2013.09.09 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl.Appeal No.646-SB of 2002 16 out from the evidence on record, as discussed here-in-above are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inevitable and irresistible that it was the appellant, who had kidnapped and attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix(minor), in the same manner as projected by the prosecution and not otherwise. In this manner, his guilt is duly proved and the trial Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant in the indicated manner. Therefore, all the contrary submissions of learned counsel for the appellant "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present of circumstances, as the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain's case (supra) 'mutatis mutandis" is fully attracted to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Since, no such legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
34. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
35. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of appellant-Raghbir @ Bheera forthwith and commit him to jail to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.
Sd/-
September 05, 2013 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No
Rani Seema S
2013.09.09 14:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh