Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.S-1665-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 23.09.2013
Ram Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. D.K.Bhatti, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Brar, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab, for the respondent-State.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Appellant Ram Singh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar, vide which he has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo half of the life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under the aforesaid Section. However, co-accused Nirmala Kumari has been acquitted.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the Malhotra Mamta 2013.10.01 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-1665-SB of 2002 [2] present case has been registered on the statement of Pritam Kaur which she got recorded on 14.08.1999. She, in her statement, stated that Ram Singh accused is a 'Tantrik', and he used to give treatment to her sister Vidya Devi, who was suffering from paralysis. During his visit, Ram Singh developed illicit relation with accused Nirmal Kaur, daughter of Vidya Devi. Nirmal Kaur's husband had gone to Arab country. Vidya Devi did not like the said relationship but she was threatened and stopped from disclosing about the said relationship to anybody. About eight days prior, Vidya Devi was beaten up by the accused. On 08.08.1999, Vidya Devi disclosed about her beatings to Pritam Kaur, complainant. On 12.08.1999, Vidya Devi ended her life by lying before a running train. After the registration of the case, prosecutrix, daughter of Nirmal Kaur accused, was examined. She disclosed that about a month prior to the death of her maternal grand mother Vidya Devi, her mother had gone to Village Chanian and in her absence, during the night time when she alongwith Vidya Devi and Ram Singh was sleeping in one room, at about 12 o'clock, Ram Singh came to her cot and attempted to rape her. On the next morning, she narrated the said incident to her maternal grand mother Vidya Devi and also to her mother Nirmal Kaur, when she returned home. On this statement of the prosecutrix, another offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was added in the FIR against accused Ram Singh. Prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Malhotra Mamta 2013.10.01 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-1665-SB of 2002 [3] Magistrate Ist Class on 01.09.1999. After necessary investigation, challan under Sections 306 read with Section 34 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC against the accused was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, Ram Singh was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC and accused Nirmal Kaur was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Dr. Harpreet Mann, who medico legally examined the prosecutrix on 17.08.1999 at about 4:30 p.m. As per doctor (PW1), hymen was torn. This witness also stated that there was evidence of sexual activity. However, no definite opinion regarding alleged rape could be given. PW2 Pritam Kaur, complainant, mainly deposed as per prosecution version. She also deposed that the prosecutrix had told her that Ram Singh accused had committed rape upon her after threatening her. PW3 prosecutrix also deposed as per prosecution version. PW4 Vinod Bhandari, who brought the summoned record, proved copy of School Leaving Certificate Ex.PG of prosecutrix. PW5 Dalip Singh, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding scaled site Malhotra Mamta 2013.10.01 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-1665-SB of 2002 [4] plan Ex.PH. PW6 Tarsem Lal deposed as per prosecution version. PW7 Sh. H.S.Grewal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, proved the statement Ex.PF of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also identified his signatures on the said statement. PW8 Vijay Kumar also deposed as per prosecution version. PW9 Head Constable Janak Raj deposed regarding preparing of inquest report etc. PW10 Dr. K.S.Bawa mainly deposed regarding the postmortem examination conducted by him on the dead body of Vidya Devi. PW11 ASI Surinder Singh, Investigating Officer, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Surjivan Goel, Ahlmad to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class and DW2 Raj Kumar, Clerk, Office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar.
The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused Ram Singh under Section 376 (2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC and acquitted accused Nirmal Kaur, as stated above. However, appellant Ram Singh was acquitted under Section 306 IPC.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the Malhotra Mamta appellant contended that the appellant is innocent and he has been 2013.10.01 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-1665-SB of 2002 [5] falsely implicated in the present case as there was property dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Prosecutrix has deposed falsely against the appellant and she is a tutored witness. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appeal should be allowed and appellant should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. There is no evidence on the record to show that the Prosecutrix is tutored witness. There is also no evidence to show the innocence of the appellant. The appellant was residing in the house of prosecutrix. The oral statements of the PWs are duly supported by medical evidence. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statement of prosecutrix. Learned counsel also contended that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed.
I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel.
From the evidence on record, I find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. Prosecutrix is a child witness and at the time of deposing in the Court she was about 12 years of age. As per School Leaving Certificate Ex.PG, her date of birth is 04.03.1989 which means that at the time of occurrence, she was about 10 years old and definitely less than 12 years of age. Malhotra Mamta 2013.10.01 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-1665-SB of 2002 [6] The prosecutrix has consistently deposed as per prosecution version. Though, in chief-examination, she has stated that a rape has been committed upon her but as per the statement given by her before the Magistrate, only attempt was attributed to the accused. PW1 Dr. Harpreet Mann, who medico legally examined the prosecutrix has also not given any specific opinion regarding rape. The perusal of the cross-examination of prosecutrix (PW3) nowhere shows that she is a tutored witness except the suggestion which was denied by the prosecutrix. There is nothing on the record to show that she has been tutored. Otherwise also, there is nothing on the record to show as to why this child witness would depose falsely against the accused. It is in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix that even at the time of deposing in the Court, the prosecutrix was not residing with Pritam Kaur,(PW2), her maternal aunt. It is in the statement of prosecutrix that she disclosed regarding the occurrence to Pritam Kaur (PW2) also. The statement of Pritam Kaur (PW2) supports and corroborates the prosecution version and also the statement of prosecutrix (PW3). The prosecutrix has been cross-examined in detail but nothing came out from her cross-examination which may make her statement unreliable. There is nothing on the record to prove the innocence of the accused. At the time of occurrence, appellant-accused was residing in the house of Nirmal Kaur, mother of the prosecutrix, with whom he had illicit relation as per prosecution version. It is also in the evidence that on that night, mother of the Malhotra Mamta 2013.10.01 12:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-1665-SB of 2002 [7] prosecutrix had gone to Village Chanian. Prosecutrix is truthful, trustworthy and reliable witness. There is nothing on the record to prove that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. No defence witness has been examined to prove any enmity or motive of the PWs against the appellant.
From the aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is correct and as per law and as such, the same is upheld.
Therefore, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.
Since the appellant is on bail, granted by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2006, therefore, he is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities to complete remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authorities shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
23.09.2013 (INDERJIT SINGH)
mamta JUDGE
Malhotra Mamta
2013.10.01 12:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh