Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Kaur vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 October, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
CRM A 732-MA of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM A 732-MA of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 19.10.2012
Harpreet Kaur
.....Applicant
versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik
Present: Mr.Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M. No.51999 of 2011 This application has been filed for condonation of 14 days delay in filing the application for grant of leave to file an appeal. For the reasons mentioned in application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and delay stands condoned.
CRM A 732-MA of 2012 The applicant-complainant has filed this application under Section 378(4) read with Section 372 Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment and order dated 12.6.2012 and 14.6.2012 respectively. Vide the judgment and order mentioned above, respondent No.2 was sentenced for commisison of offences under Section 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for commission of an offence under Section 366 IPC with a default clause and further ordered to undergo RI for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for commission of an offence under Section 376 IPC with a CRM A 732-MA of 2012(O&M) 2 default clause. Besides as above, respondent No.2 was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the prosecutrix.
This application has been filed with a prayer for enhancement of sentence awarded to respondent No.2 and also to claim higher compensation than the one granted by the Court below.
As per facts on record, respondent No.2 was arrayed as an accused in FIR No.84 dated 23.4.2011 for commisison of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. It was an allegation against him that he had kidnapped the applicant from her house on 5.4.2011 and committed rape upon her by making a false promise to marry her.
Process of law was initiated on the basis of a DDR No.21 recorded on 7.4.2011 in PS Rania, district Sirsa regarding missing of the applicant. She was traced on 22.4.2011. FIR was recorded on a statement (Ex.PA) made by her on 23.4.2011 to Mangal Singh ASI.
The trial Judge has noted the following facts out of her statement:-
"that in the year 2007 after passing her matriculation examination, she took admission in polytechnic course in M.M. Polytechnic College, Fatehabad and started residing in the hostel of the said college. During the said course, Sahil Mehta started talking to her from his mobile phone no.98967-03039 and friendship developed between them. On 24.9.2009 on account of death of her mother due to heart attack she had to come back to her house after leaving her studies. Sahil Mehta alias Virender son of Gurdayal Singh used to talk with her CRM A 732-MA of 2012(O&M) 3 telephonically and he used to disclose to her that he was unmarried and a rich person. On 5.4.2011 when her brother Jaswinder Singh and her father were not present in the house then Sahil Mehta alias Virender rang up her on her mobile phone no.72061-48953 from his mobile phone No.94679-12245 and he came to her house and enticed her away on his motor- cycle. The complainant has further alleged that before leaving the house, he committed rape upon her in a room of her house on the promise of marrying her and then he took her to Railway Station Kalanwali and then to Rajiv nagar, Gurgaon where he continued to commit rape upon her in a room till 19.4.2011 under the promise of marrying her and on 20.4.2011 Sahil alias Virender Mohan took her to Mohali to see the 20-20 cricket match and after the cricket match Sahil Mehta alias Virender Mohan left her at Bus Stand, UT Chandigarh after hatching a conspiracy. The complainant further alleged that Sahil Mehta alias Virender Mohan was already married and he continued committing rape upon her under the false promise of marrying her."
It was further case of the prosecution that she was traced out by the police at Bus stand Chandigarh on 22.4.2011 and allowed her to accompany her parents. The investigating officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes. He also recordeed statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was got medico legally examined from General CRM A 732-MA of 2012(O&M) 4 Hospital, Sirsa. Statement of the prosecutrix was also got recorded before a Magistrate on 24.3.2011. Respondent No.2/ accused was arrested on 26.4.2011. He was also got medico legally examined.
On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court. Copies of the documents were supplied to the respondent-accused as per norms. Case was committed to the competent Court for trial on 22.7.2011. The prosecution to prove its case, produced 11 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On conclusion of prosecution's evidence statement of the respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating circumstances against him on record were put to him, which he denied claimed innocence and false implication. It was specifically stated by him that the prosecutrix had illicit relations with one Gurvinder Singh who had strained relations with the accused and at the instance of above person, he has falsely been implicated in this case. He also led evidence in defence.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence, found the respondent- accused guilty for commission of offences and sentenced him as mentioned in earlier part of this order.
It is an admitted fact that appeal filed by respondent No.2- accused against judgment under challenge bearing CRA -S-2031-SB-2012 is pending admited in this Court.
By filing the present application enhancement in sentence and compensation has been claimed. So far as enhancement in sentence is concerned, we have gone through the order under challenge, the trial Judge, after noting facts of this case, awarded sentence to the respondent-accused CRM A 732-MA of 2012(O&M) 5 which appears to be in proportion to the offence committed by him. We are not giving any opinion on merits lest it may hamper interest of either of the parties in pending appeal. So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, the applicant be at liberty to claim the same by putting in appearance in above said appeal filed by respondent No.2-accused.
Counsel for the applicant has failed to make out a case for interference in awarding of sentence.
With above observations, this application stands dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
$
19.10.2012 (Rameshwar Singh Malik)
gk Judge