Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 November, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
CRA-S-589-SB of 2003 1
316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-589-SB of 2003
Date of decision: 19.11.2014
Jit Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent-State.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
****
REKHA MITTAL , J.
The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kapurthala by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 366, 344 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), extracted in detail hereinbelow:-
Name of Under Sentence Fine in ` In Default
convict Section (R.I.)
Jit Singh 366 IPC 07 years 1000/- 06 months
376 IPC 07 years 1000/- 06 months
344 IPC 02 years 500/- 06 months
506 IPC 02 years 500/- 06 months
VANDANA VERMA
2014.11.25 11:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRA-S-589-SB of 2003 2
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The facts, in brief, are that the case was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix (name kept secret) on the allegations that she passed matriculation from DAV Girls High School in March, 1997 and then did course in stitching clothes from village Prempur. In the village of the complainant, a private public school was started in the house of Jit Singh accused, namely, Harkishan Public School. In July 1988, complainant was employed as a teacher in the said school at a salary of `400 per month. There were four rooms, one varanda and a separate kitchen in the school premises. On 02.09.1998, when the complainant was to leave for her house after the school time, Jit Singh asked her that he was expecting some relatives in the evening and she should come and prepare food for them. On that date, mother and younger brother of the complainant had gone to Dera Wadbagh Singh and her brother namely, Gurjit Singh, had gone out of house for playing. At about 7:00 p.m. she locked her house, handed over the keys to her neighbour and went to the house of accused to prepare food. The accused was alone in his house at that time. On asking of the accused, she started preparing food in the kitchen and the accused entered the kitchen and bolted the door from inside. When she resisted advances of the accused, he threatened her that she would be done to death and would also be defamed. The accused forced her to write a letter to her father that she was going to commit suicide by drowning. The accused kept the complainant confined in a room underneath the kitchen for about 08 months in the school and had been committing VANDANA VERMA 2014.11.25 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-589-SB of 2003 3 sexual intercourse against her wishes. The complainant became pregnant and on 16.05.1999 at about 3/4 a.m. the accused took her to village Begowal on a cycle and from village Begowal they reached Kapurthala by bus and started residing in Mohalla Malkana in a rented room. During their stay in the said room, the accused had been committing rape and she was not allowed to talk to anybody else. She gave birth to a child. The accused was already married and had a son of 14 years from his first marriage who was residing with sister of the accused at Village Nawan Pind Bhathe. This fact came to knowledge of the complainant later. The son of the complainant was also sent by the accused to his sister at aforesaid village. Accused got employment in SSK factory, Kapurthala and also used to take her in factory for work. The complainant had been asking the accused that she wanted to meet her parents but the accused instead of taking her there started beating and torturing her. He got signed certain documents from her under threat in the Court complex and instituted a false complaint against her parents. On 20.10.1999, she managed to escape from clutches of the accused.
On the basis of statement made by the complainant recorded by Parkash Singh ASI, formal FIR was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala. She was got medically examined from Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.
On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. After necessary VANDANA VERMA 2014.11.25 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-589-SB of 2003 4 compliance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence under Sections 366 and 376 being exclusively triable by the said Court.
The accused was charged for committing offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 367, 344 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution examined Dr. Madhu Gupta PW-1, the prosecutrix PW-2, Jarnail Singh PW-3, Gurbachan Singh PW-4, Harjit Kaur PW-5, Rajesh Kumar PW-6, Raj Kumar John PW-7, Dr. Sumeet Dhillon PW-8 and ASI Parkash Singh (Investigating Officer) PW-9. The medico legal report of the accused was tendered into evidence as Ex-PF.
The statement of the accused in compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded through which he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. He raised the plea that the prosecutrix was married with him by her parents and due to party faction in the village, false case has been registered against him by the police. He examined HC Ranjit Singh DW-1 and Mrs. Alka Nayer DW-2, in his defence.
The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the accused and rival submissions made by respective counsel(s) for the parties came to record a verdict of the accused being guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 366, 376, 344 and 506 IPC and accordingly, he was sentenced as noticed hereinbefore.
VANDANA VERMA2014.11.25 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-589-SB of 2003 5
To assail the findings of the trial Court in regard to conviction of the accused for offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, the sole submission made by counsel for the appellant is that the prosecutrix aged more than 16 years was a consenting party but the learned trial Court did not consider the matter in right perspective while holding the accused guilty of offence for committing rape. Further dilating, it is argued that the prosecutrix was born on 31.01.1981 as per date of birth shown in her matriculation certificate but even if statement of the prosecutrix before the Court is believed that she was born in January, 1982, she was 16 years and 08 months old at the time of alleged occurrence on 02.09.1998. The prosecutrix stayed with the accused since 02.09.1998 till lodging of FIR on 20.10.1999, for a period of about 13 months. During this period, the parties shifted from the original place of stay to Kapurthala by bus. The accused got employment in a factory at Kapurthala and the prosecutrix had been accompanying him for working in the factory. She had admitted that she gave birth to a child in May, 1999 and the child was born in a nursing home. It is vehemently argued that as the prosecutrix did not express any grievance to people met her on her way to Kapurthala, during her stay in the rented accommodation at Kapurthala, her work in the factory at Kapurthala, at the time of delivery of child in a nursing home, it speaks volumes that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Further argued that version of the prosecutrix that she was put under threat cannot be accepted in the circumstances that she stayed with the accused for over one year. Counsel has also carried me through cross-examination of the VANDANA VERMA 2014.11.25 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-589-SB of 2003 6 prosecutrix to point out certain vital facts elicited during her cross- examination. She has admitted that when her father came to the school to meet Jit Singh to know about her, she could hear the conversation as she was in the Kitchen at that point of time but did not raise any voice much less commotion to seek her rescue.
Counsel has further submitted that though the offence under Sections 366, 344 and 506 IPC have not been proved against the accused but he does not press his challenge in regard to conviction of the accused for those offence and prayed that sentence awarded for the said offence may be reduced to the period already undergone as he has suffered actual custody for a period of 02 years, 09 months and 13 days and custody with remission for 03 years and 05 months. In addition, it is submitted that the accused has faced pangs of criminal proceedings for the past more than 15 years which also requires to be taken into consideration while appreciating his prayer for reduction of sentence.
Counsel representing State of Punjab has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence with the submissions that there is no justification for intervention.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Keeping in view the facts brought on record in view of testimony of the prosecutrix, there is no escape from conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party for sexual relationship between the parties. It is difficult to believe that if the prosecutrix was not a consenting party, she stayed in the school for about 08 months VANDANA VERMA 2014.11.25 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-589-SB of 2003 7 without raising hue and cry. She got ample opportunity to complain against conduct of the accused but she opted to remain silent. Her parents did not report the matter to the police since September, 1998 till lodging of the FIR by the prosecutrix herself. The learned trial Court despite noticing these facts held the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC without appreciating that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, held to be more than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I have no hesitation to hold that findings of the trial Court in regard to conviction and sentence of the accused for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC cannot be allowed to sustain and accordingly set aside.
With regard to conviction of the accused for offence under Sections 366, 344 and 506 IPC, as counsel for the petitioner did not opt to challenge the findings on merits and prayed for reduction in sentence, in view of circumstances obtaining in the present case, sentence awarded to the accused for offence punishable under Sections 366, 344 and 506 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal stands disposed of.
November 19, 2014 (REKHA MITTAL)
Vandana JUDGE
VANDANA VERMA
2014.11.25 11:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document